English longbows vs medieval plate armour - Battlefield Detectives documentary review

[@Robert399]

"It's an incredibly simple weapon to use. You draw your weapon back, full draw [then let go presumably]". Yep, just like sniper rifles are incredibly simple weapons to use: you aim, then you pull the trigger. Sword are incredibly simple to use as well: you move your arm back then you move your arm forwards.

[@secularnevrosis]

Yup. That got me too. Simple to use? I guess thats why you had to train with your bow a certain amount each week by decree of law. Not to mention the enormous strenght you had to have to be able to do a full pull on such heavy bows. And then there is the whole process of "aiming" with the war bow. As I understand it you cant aim in a conventional way because of the drawlenght of the bow..its more like throwing a knife..you train until you hit your mark instinctivly.

[@Cactus-pv3jz]

Yup. Those archers are some of the most muscular guy, especially the biceps and triceps, out there in the army. And they're said the battle last for at least 2 hours, it like weightlifting 180lbs for an hour, then fighting in close combat for an other hours. Don't think that there are any "untrained" guys could do that.

[@ImBarryScottCSS]

It's incredibly simple Einstein, you simply throw out the prevailing opinion, spend seven years working as a patent clerk and then publish the most paradigm defying set of papers in the history of physics. Easy.

[@JohnSmith-im8qt]

Some of these guys would start training with a little bow as kids. Your bows grew with you. I saw a documentary where they talked about skeletal deformities from the musculature.

[@jamespfp]

Elegant, really. A more elegant weapon for a more simple time. Tis but a flesh wound.

[@iopklmification]

The musket is such a useless weapon, according to my experiment it has a 0.000001% chance of damaging a charging panzer.

[@andrewplck]

+iopklmification Can confirm.

[@RuSosan]

+iopklmification That's what the bayonet is for. 40k Imperial Guard standard, duh. Beats everything. :D

[@malnutritionboy]

it can damage a panzer 2

[@RuSosan]

Melting Clocks Oh yeah, the Imperial Guard bayonet even comes with a flashlight attached to it. Oh, excuse me, a "Lasgun".

[@malnutritionboy]

RuSosan and if you play mount and blade their is a cheat where you can get katanas and samuri armour i'm not much of a katana fan but i'm just gonna point that out

[@metatronyt]

Fantastic job! Loved this video :D

[@carloscastanheiro2933]

Im 3 years too late, but hi Metatron, love your channel lol.

[@francescoragghianti6068]

@@carloscastanheiro2933 Im 2 years too late, but hi Carlos, love your channel lol.

[@carloscastanheiro2933]

@@francescoragghianti6068 LOL

[@mechtheist]

A ways back, maybe 15-20 years, I saw in I think Scientific American about some archeological findings involving English long bowmen. It discussed the forces involved in shooting one and that they had found the remains of a few longbowmen. Their bone structure was clearly heavily influenced by what had to be years and years of training, probably since childhood. It wasn't a skill you could pick up in later life, you had to have spent decades practicing to get the kinds of structural changes in the bones.

[@Mububban23]

And that lifetime requirement of regular practise is what made it unsustainable. Crossbows are much slower but you can try a guy up in a few days. But just imagine what a sight it must have been, standing shoulder to shoulder with thousands upon thousands of your fellow archers, and seeing thousands of arrows raining down on your enemies. What an amazing/beautiful/horrific sight it must have been.

[@anitabonghit2758]

so how did the english win? could they have had help from ancient alien visitors? some people believe they were. -history channel

[@carloscastanheiro2933]

LOL

[@loosetongue2110]

*ALIENS*

[@garysmith3173]

‘Some people claim!’😂😂🏹🥁😘

[@Adam_okaay]

We have an expert who says there is no evidence that disproves the involvement of aliens.

[@armsandarmour1080]

Just wanted to add a few notes, or to be more accurate, quotes from Alan William's "The knight and the blast furnace". First, about the slag inclusions: "If it was skilfully forged, the slag can be distributed in long "stringers" shaped like fibres, rather than globules, and the retention of some slag was considered an advantage in certain applications, because *the inclusions could act as crack stoppers* under stress, so giving more warning of impending failure. Indeed slag was deliberately mingled with the iron in the "mechanical puddling" process practised by the Aston-Byers Company until the mid-20th century" "Under the conditions of the medieval bloomery , *an increase in the carbon content of the bloom entailed a reduction in the slag content*, so by using large furnaces for the production of armour plate a virtuous circle could be set up. Large blooms of steel, high in carbon and low in slag, ideal for making armour plate, could be made. The importance of using steel for even armour of modest quality is reinforced. Conversely, the use of iron which was high in slag for the cheapest munition armour endowed it with a poor performance, explaining just why it fetched so low a price." Now about the quality of italian armour, which was used throughout whole Europe: "The metallography of a large number of specimens of Italian armour shows that general conclusions can be drawn about the material that was used and the extent to which armourers heat-treated their products to harden them. *Armour (with or without marks) is almost always made of steel in 15th century Italy*, and in just over half of the marked examples studied here, it is a mediumcarbon steel. In around two-thirds of the marked examples, some attempt has been made to harden them by heat-treatment, which has been successful in around one-third of all cases." And there was actually a comparison test carried out between a modern mild steel plate and an actual 16th century cold-worked steel plate. The latter proved to be better: "The fact that modern mild steel failed to absorb all the bullet's kinetic energy, while the 16th-century breastplate did, can probably be attributed to the early armourer's skill at cold-working the breastplate and hardening its surface." journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312 So to sum everything up, I do believe that a simple modern mild steel plate is not a good analogue for medieval armour, because it actually provides significally less protection, according to the evidence, provided above.

[@thelukesternater]

I guess if a family does smiths for generations they would be good at it so I can see such a thing as that slag trick happening.

[@messerzeug5779]

+Arms and Armour I am always a bit sceptical about the works of Alan Williams, on one hand he did a magnificent job in examining all the armors and made very precise measurments and analyses of the material and tried to find "modern" analogs. On the other hand he draws conclusions from the slag content of wrought iron and transfers it to the performance of original armor without considering the size of the slag inclusions. The problem with wrought iron is that it is forged down from a big bloom, but usually it is not forge folded. Historicly most steel that was used for producing arms and armour was folded several times. This breaks down the slag inclusions and reduces their size significantly to a point were they are nearly invisible even under a microscope. At the same time the toughness increases significantly, because the weak points in the material are reduced in size, similarly to carbides in modern steel. Carbides are very brittle and have a very weak bond with the steel matrix. Big carbides like in 154 CM steel result in a relatively brittle material, while smaller carbides as in cpm 154 result in a much tougher steel.

[@armsandarmour1080]

+Messerzeug To be honest, I have no idea where you get those conclusions from. Because if I remember correctly, armour of late medieval/renaissance period wasn't folded, according to Filarette's description, that Williams provides in his book. Sure, we can only guess how they made the steel back then, basing on this kind of evidence, but we can be almost sure it wasn't folded in that time period. And as we can see by the metallography of the original armour pieces, the slag inclusions can be seen there, and their shape varies from globular to the narrow elongated ones, described above. And there are even specimens that are almost, or completely free from slag, but those ones are rather rare.

[@messerzeug5779]

+Arms and Armour Actually Williams mentions it himself in his book several times, but the main reason for the idea is coming from medieval production of steel. Historicly armourers and even sword smiths did not forge fold their steel. The steel was folded in the production process. Usually in iron hammers, and hammer mills. Either directly from the compacted bloom (in the case of bloomery steel) or (in case of the cast iron coming from a blast furnace) the cast iron was first decarburized in a finery forge and then drawn out, in a second process those rods of wrought iron were carburized and then forgewelded together and folderd several times in a hammer mill. That was historically the usual process, as it was for example mostly described in Agricolas "de re metallica libri" However that does not mean that some armourers might not have used wrought iron or really bad forge welded material that does not differ much from normal wrought iron. Some of the microscopic images from Williams book certainly would support that. But if you look very carefully at the analyses in the book, you might discover that some of the armours (especially the very early German ones, but others as well) have very huge elongated slag inclusions that look like slag inclusions in wrought iron, while others seem to be virtually slag free although the images are magnified several hundred times. However in the tables showing the slag content for the armours, the slag content does not differ that much for the respective armours. The reason is simple. The steel was almost certainly forge folded, which broke down the size of the slag and reduced the negative effects of the slag. The slag is still there (most of it anyways) but it is much smaller. That is why I used the analogy of carbides in my first post.

[@armsandarmour1080]

+Messerzeug Well I must admit, I did find some mentions of folding under some of the armour analyses(very few though), however they do not posses the qualities you describe and do have at least some visible slag inclusions. In the eight section of the book there are mentions of small iron globules, obtained from the finery process, that are consolidated into a bigger bloom by a water-hammer, but it doesn't look like a folding process. And in Agricolas "de re metallica" (that I was able to find here: www.gutenberg.org/files/38015/38015-h/38015-h.htm#Page_425) there's no evidence of folding in the description of finery process as well: "Such ores are smelted in a furnace similar to the blast furnace, but much wider and higher, so that it may hold a great quantity of ore and much charcoal; mounting the stairs at the side of the furnace, the smelters fill it partly with fragments of ore not larger than nuts, and partly with charcoal; and from this kind of ore once or twice smelted they make iron which is suitable for re-heating in the blacksmith's forge, after it is flattened out with the large iron hammer and cut into pieces with the sharp iron." I guess folding actually took place sometimes, but I'm not convinced it was a common practice. However, I was wrong with my original statement and I admit that.

[@mrnobody6354]

When we are young we tend to believe everything found in documentaries and text books, only when we grew older that we find out even those "respected" sources aren't always trustworthy. Matt you should make some documentaries.

[@danielbamford3015]

Been loving longbow videos and your video has realy helped provide quality perspective to the input thanks allot.

[@JesseCuster]

"We fired this .50 caliber machine gun at a Coke can made in the 80s. From this conclusion, we can see that the....." I remember once, back in the mid 90s, watching a documentary where the "English longbowmen" were called the "machine-gunners of their day." And in perhaps the same documentary or a different one, someone said they would fire up into the air. When their first arrow was hitting the target, the next arrow was already in the air, and the third arrow was leaving the bow. HAVE I BEEN LIED TO MY ENTIRE LIFE????? My world.......is riven.

[@11kakuzu]

35 minute scholagladatoria video FUCK YESSS!!!

[@jcorbett9620]

"Longbows were easy to use" REALLY?? So why did it require archers to start training as soon as they were able to hold a bow and then years of constant practice to gain the strength and skill to use a war-bow properly? If you want "ease of use" - get a crossbow, takes you 5 mins to learn. I don't know how true it is, but it seems very plausible, that archeologists can tell an archer from any other type of man-at-arms, simply by the massive deformaties of the upper body skeleton, caused by the stresses of drawing 100+ lb war-bows for many years. "Archers had no skill and were cheap" Wow they really have it in for the poor archers, don't they. Funny that they were highly prized, well paid and in demand. This seems at odds with any employer/employee relationship. Do you really pay someone with no skills several times more than the bulk of your workforce? I have to agree with Matts comment that they set this experiment up to fail - to try and debunk the English Longbow as a deadly weapon. It was in use as a primary weapon of war for 150 years or more - NO-ONE uses a weapon for that long if it's useless. If this is to be given any relevance you need a correct bow and proper weight arrows to calculate the force exerted, then a metallurgically correct peice of curved steel over the appropriate linen/mail/flesh backing and a correct arrowhead to do the drop test. Anything less and your conclusions are rubbish, as Matt said.

[@HPWPAO]

Exactly, this is in fact the reason crossbows became more popular. As Europeans tended to be malnourished most couldn't use high powered bows, and a crossbow can be used by anyone, many models would have been as easy to use effectively for women at the time as the men. Even standard archers needed notable strength and practice to ensure they wouldn't be shooting friendly troops in the back.

[@SkurtavusGrodolfus]

Great video, Matt! Thank you for all the effort you put into ALL of your videos, they are always realöy interesting.

[@verysurvival]

a burst ring caused by penetration would definitely reduce my willingness to fight

[@JonasUllenius]

Chris Oly LOL. But what if it's your ...

[@Zathaghil]

If someone burst my ring, i'd be friggin' furious and would battle that rot even harder, since clearly I failed up to that point. Not like I'd stop and go, "Oh penetration? Lovely! I stop fighting then, keep it up..." O;o

[@PalleRasmussen]

I hear a burst rectal muscle is very- VERY painful, so I suspect you would now.

[@del_boy_trotter]

@Humble Trekker I wondered just how many commenters would recognise your very British form of humour? In fairness, I think you've been answered by a few Brits!!😂😂

[@Halrin]

You give me a lot of confidence in your assertions by being so consistently reasonable and detailed in your videos. This was incredibly well done and as an archer I am very very glad to have your video to use as rebuttal to some of the commonly held misconceptions that others I know still hold.

[@Lttlemoi]

Wasn't the battlefield also just one giant pool of mud, significantly slowing down the charging French army, and _not_ the lush green lawn depicted in this "documentary"?

[@thelukesternater]

That's the secondary part of the "doco"

[@merlball8520]

I almost always wait until the end of every video I watch before I upvote or downvote (almost always an upvote for your videos), but 1/3 of the way through I'm already ready to upvote. You nailed this so well, I'm seriously impressed.

[@TheAdvertisement]

There were definitely some very visible flaws in the documentary when I first watched it, but wow you just shed a whole new light on exactly how much they were bsing us. Great analysis!

[@archereegmb8032]

Great video Matt. This has to be the best, most unbiased representation of the ongoing battle between armour and the warbow that I've ever seen. Your arguments echo some of the things i've ranted about with that useless 'documentary', and added many others. Whenever the subject comes up ( and I'm certain it will keep coming up), I will refer them to this video. Keep up the great work. Jim.

[@Zunbil]

So, from this we can conclude that an army of longbow wielding horse archers with katanas for sidearms would dominate any pre-atomic era battlefield.

[@cessatiolux6250]

Who are always supreme nipponese warriors

[@iuliuegyed9899]

The katana isn't that good of a weapon it was just over glorified by people

[@cessatiolux6250]

Iuliu Egyed racist

[@darkblood626]

+Iuliu Egyed What? Blasphemy! Superior Japanese steel. Folded over 8000 times. Can cut the very air. 10/10 weaboos agree!

[@berndberndsen5680]

+NorwegianChris What about horse wielding longbow archers?

[@sandmanhh67]

Matt - one of the factors I always wonder about and have never seen tested is the disorientation caused by arrow imacts on the helmet - sort of the head in a bin with someone panging on it with drumsticks. My guess is that would slow the advance rate down, allowing more time for flat shooting archers to choose their targets, aim for visor slots, etc. That and having to keep the visor slots pointed downwards to avoid arrows. Its a shame none of these docs have even done the obvious - set up a 100 yard track with a sort of crash text dummy on rails advancing towards a small number of archers armed with the proper kit. Dress the dummy in appropriate armour (with all the layers), rig the helmet for sound detection, then set it off at walking pace towards the archers who can have at it....see how much damage they cause before the dummy reaches their lines.

[@nachoolo]

if it is a direct hit, most probaly the force would stun the guy, but only a second or two, if it is a indirect hit (bad angle, arrow bouncing from another hit) the guy would even notice anything

[@crwydryny]

+sandmanhh67 that's the kind of test I'd love to see. a ballistic dummy, kitted out in full armour, then shot at (say a few shots every 10m) and repeat until penetration. may have to swap out the armour after each round of fire to prevent damage from previous rounds from affecting the results. so you'd need a lot of armour, and a lot of arrows but it would finally end the debate... until someone thinks of some other possibility.

[@CorvinTheSwasian]

well in that experiment you would need several dummies or only one archer. otherwise you might get more hits than you would in a battle

[@medalf]

+sandmanhh67 70 joules is a lot when it's concentrated over a small surface like the tip of an arrow (0.5 cm) but when it's spread over a full plate and dulled by the gambison that's underneath you get no more than a light punch. Any fighter wearing plate armour would feel it but not much else and that's only if the arrows sticks and doesn't bounce. That's if the arrow doesn't penetrate and pierces through his liver. :)

[@heespeseth]

+nachoolo Any hit to the helmet (penetrating or not, or glansing off due to the angle of hit) would be felt very much in the types of helmets at the time. Just ask any one that have had their helmet hit by anything (any helmet). Btw there isn't anything called an indirect hit, unless you count a riccochett :D

[@frankkolton1780]

All very good points. Archery (target and bowhunting), both traditional and modern, has been a life long hobby of mine. Another misconception stated in the documentary - "It's a very simple weapon to use." A body builder would have difficulty drawing back a bow with a 70 lb. draw weight more than a couple times without training, an English Longbow at 100 lbs. could only be drawn back and shot accurately by men who had many years of training, most English archers were trained from when they were children. One of my many bows peaks at just over 70 lbs. at my draw length, in my wildest dreams I couldn't even imagine the strength it takes to draw a bow 100 lbs or more.

[@myster.ejones1306]

I agree 100%, I saw that documentary, (well most of it,) I couldn't hear the narrator during the bits where I was swearing at the screen! You've put the exact same arguments, but politely. Thank You for that, (I'll think of this as another training video) 😊

[@equesdeventusoccasus]

This was the very first of Matt's videos I watched, several years ago, stuck around because of how animated he was. Still think it is a great video. Cheers, Matt.

[@DesignatedMember]

Does anyone else feel like burning down a TV studio building after viewing this?

[@neilwilson5785]

Great video. This happens a lot in WW2 documentaries when anti-tank fire is represented by guns firing in a high arc, when AT fire would be on a much flatter trajectory. I understand, as the camera would be unlikely to be close to an AT gun firing at a tank 200 metres away. I watched an archer at a reenactment who pentrated a breastplate, which was at about 30 metres.

[@alicemckin]

Once saw Pip Bickerstaffe firing a 150lb longbow what a beast, it was like a gun going off!

[@scholagladiatoria]

+alicemckin My 85lb bow is a Bickerstaffe Mary Rose style bow.

[@alicemckin]

+scholagladiatoria Very nice they are lovely pieces of work. Will we get to see a demonstration in the future?

[@scholagladiatoria]

+alicemckin Possibly. I want to get back into shooting, but at the moment I can only manage my 70lb bow, because the 85lb bow at my draw length is about 90lbs and I can't handle that without regular practice unfortunately!

[@GallowglassAxe]

Tod Todeschini who is a master of crossbows has videos about how loud the war crossbows are. Its really interesting because you wouldn't think it would be that loud.

[@Schmunzel57]

+scholagladiatoria I try to compare the strength in hands: What is you bathroom scale showing, pressing it in you hands (hands around opposing rims), not with the Christmas food.

[@Kriegerdammerung]

They got the figures wrong. Formula for kinetic energy is mass times velocity to the power of two, divided two. K = m x V^2 / 2, so K = 0.063 x (37.9)^2 / 2 K = 45 J, not 38. Unless I've got the formula wrong

[@PolluxA]

+Kriegerdammerung Correct. However, a longbow at full draw will shoot a 63,7 gram arrow at 55-64 m/s, not 37,9 m/s. That's more like 96,3 joule and 130,5 joule. If you increase the weight of the arrow to 110 gram and 125 gram, heavy bows in the 150 lbs to 175 lbs range will shot them at 53 m/s and give you between 154,5 joule and 175 joule. That's the optimum. If you take a look at the impulse you will have something like 5.72 N*s and 6.625 N*s. A 63,7 gram arrow will only reach between 3.5035N*s and 4.0768 N*s, shot out of the powerful bows. That makes a huge difference. The strength of these bows are their capability to shoot heavy arrows without much speed reduction. That's what they are made for.

[@Kriegerdammerung]

PolluxVarangir The documentary "experts" couldn't solve simple calculus, bullocks

[@Kriegerdammerung]

They also got the Imperial Units wrong. K = V^2 x m / 452240, so K = (124.3^2 x 972) / 450240 so K = 33.36 ft.lbs They cannot solve simple calculus, O Mars!

[@mortenjacobsen5673]

you forgot the 0,5 in the front

[@SuperFalconhead]

Makes you think how accurate other documentaries are

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

+Falc0n122 still looks much better than the video with the sergeant from Full Metal Jacket

[@malnutritionboy]

+scarfacemperor That German sure did most of the Crusade :)

[@tokeeptrackofrandomsubs5899]

+scarfacemperor Yuck! don't remind about that, I remember seeing the metatron channel doing something similar to this video and shorter because there was less bad footage. Beyond that I actually do generally like the actor R. Lee Ermey, when he's in the right situation. The snippets I've seen from other episodes of Lock N' Load when he's dealing with firearms or other reasonably modern contraptions aren't too bad. And when he's in a role that suits him otherwise in films he does do an adequate to good job in my opinion. With regards to the armour, bow and sword things in the show though I mainly blame the production crew and to a point can forgive Ermey it's obviously not something within his expertise as a former drill instructor in the army and the writers/directors/etc should really do better at the show.

[@billwessels207]

Did the archers also use pikes and or spiked poles especially when faced with heavy cavalry charge? How badly did an archers body (Skeleton) deform from the constant stresses of repeated pushing of arrows from the heavy longbow? What were the most effective projectile tips that you have tested against plate armor?

[@christina1wilson]

I have watched the Battlefield Detective's episode and it left me with a lot of questions and a lot of questions I didn't know anything about. I've seen archers shooting at and penetrating plate armor. So that bit bothered me. Thanks for posting this. it helped clarify my confusion.

[@Cervando]

Great video bit one slight mistake. The square headed bodkin was designed for piercing plate, as it was meant to tear a cross in the plate and fold four V shaped pieces back. It was the needle point with a long thin conical head that was used for mail as it was designed to fit inside the ring and burst the rivet holding it together.

[@loganfong2911]

In other news, historians have now proved that the plate armour wasn't a good armour at all because it can't withstand one hit from a 0.50 cal browning round.

[@baseballkrba]

I have been binge watching your videos (great work by the way) looking for insights into some specific questions I have regarding medieval warfighters themselves. Your longbow vs. plate armor videos come the closest to shedding light on some of my questions, which I will get to shortly. In these videos you mention that to some extent the whole debate may be a bit over analyzed, because a majority of the French army, and presumably any other army of the era, consists of ordinary soldiers not armored with plates. It’s these ordinary soldiers I am most interested in. I know a bit more about ancient Greek warfare and how a typical Greek warrior in the classical era, with the major exception being Sparta, was a farmer first and foremost. Greek warfare was often seasonal and coincided with times when the fields could do without farm hands, right after spring planting for example. Greek warriors armed themselves, they weren’t really paid by the city-state, and there role in the military was largely defined by their social status outside of a military context. If you were rich enough to have horses, you can be in the cavalry. If you could afford arms, you could be a hoplite. If you were poor, you could be a rower in the navy (at least in Athens). Ordinary people seemed to be motivated to fight in the army to defend their homes and secure loot, with some notions of civic virtue being sprinkled in there. So I wouldn’t call a Greek warrior a “soldier”. To me the term “soldier” is wrapped in the concept of the nation state. I think of soldiering as a career in itself. Soldiers are equipped and trained by the nation state. Soldiers are motivated primarily by nationalism and their wage which is paid from their nation state. Lastly, theoretically anyway, status outside of the army shouldn’t impact the role of the soldier in the army. You didn’t need to have the funds to own a cannon to be an artillery officer in Napoleon’s army. So who are these ordinary, non plate armored troops who make up a majority of the army you are mentioning in these videos? Are they peasants who have some time on their hands between planting and harvest? If you are an ordinary Englishman, why are you risking your life in France? Are you supplementing your household income with military wages or the prospect of loot? Do these people come from a better off urban background? Was upholding your lord’s prestige important enough to risk one’s life in the medieval mindset? Is it ones feudal obligation (although there are good arguments that Feudalism didn’t really exist…which would be a good video)? How many are participating in the battle because they are part a knight’s retinue? How would answers to some of these questions change at various points throughout the Middle Ages. You do an excellent job providing insight into historical arms and how they were used, do you have any interest in painting a little more of a clearer picture of who actually filled some of these gambesons?

[@barkunderjord3708]

Great video! One of the best channels of today :)

[@esperthebard]

Fantastic critique and breakdown. I definitely subscribed. Can you reference or link any accurate armor/weapons tests?

[@philgreen1944]

Thank goodness I found your channel. After watching Battlefield Detectives, many things did not make sense, which you've cleared up for me thanks. Afterwards I watched Mike Loades episode on the Longbow and Weapons that made Britain which is much more accurate and ties in with what you say if anyone is interested. Now I've a few of your videos to catch up on...

[@Jazzman-bj9fq]

I'm really enjoying your vids! I had read something about the Battle of Agincourt some months ago... I'm surprised that from the clips of the documentary you showed that none of those clips mentioned the conditions at the battlefield. According to what I read which admittedly was not from a historically referenced book or anything but it made note of accounts from a French monk St. Denis that the French forces had great difficulty in advancing because the battlefield was supposedly a newly plowed field on which it had rained so the field was muddied. The account also said that the advancing soldiers were up to their knees in mud and that the some men at arms who had fallen in the bunched up advance had been walked over and drowned by the mud. If this is even a partially accurate account, then having the infantry advance slowed down in this way would have a huge impact on the outcome of the battle, it would allow for a greater effect of the archers, especially for any archers who might be on a flank. Anyway, 'preciate your vids and your study and you sharing what you've found!

[@ClausewitzMTH]

Such an awesome video, very detailed and well argued. I always saw it the same way, that not the longbow was the crucial part but that the longbowmen were a kind of special force which could and have to do different tasks and reacting to the situation accordingly.

[@twodogsbob1786]

It's probably worth mentioning the fact that a serious arrow storm would most likely force the attackers to close their visors and raise their shields, limiting their visibility. That, and the terrifying noise of hundreds of bodkin points smashing into plate/mail, along with the force of the hits would have seriously decreased the effectiveness of a charge against archers.

[@TobyIKanoby]

Thank you for pointing out the multipurpose of archers, I always wondered why they used so much protection/armor, couldn't believe it was only for "defensive" purposes. It just makes a lot of sense to have some kind of melee function.

[@KincadeCeltoSlav]

I Love the debunking! I heart your Historical Authenticity Master Easton! Thank you Again!

[@ThePivoteer101]

15:40 (or thereabouts) I thought there were crossbows in the ranges of 400-500 pounds, with a crank system to reload, but the largest - warbows - were, as you've said, 180 or so pounds.

[@scholagladiatoria]

+ThePivoteer101 The output power is similar because of the length of the power stroke. A crossbow is only pushing the bolt for about 6-8 inches on a medieval crossbows, whereas the longbow is more like 30 inches. That's why crossbows had to be made in such high draw weights to be able to compete with longbows and why the range of medieval crossbows isn't much more than longbows.

[@ThePivoteer101]

scholagladiatoria Ah, I see. Thanks for such a quick reply!

[@Ederick1936]

+ThePivoteer101 it's pretty neat, learned that gem from tod at tod's stuff, some crossbows even went as high as 900 to 1000 lbs draw weight but were still comparable to bows.

[@ThePivoteer101]

+Aaron Mcneil yeah it is pretty cool!

[@thelonerider5644]

Yes and no. In draw weight they were higher poundage but because the bolt traveled so short a distance in the crossbow they had to be, to be similar in power to regular bows.

[@thurst6510]

I absolutely enjoyed yor analyses of this subject. Please continue.

[@CastIronSteak]

My favorite epic scholar of epicness. Rest assured, any number of aspiring fantasy authors love you for authenticity and insight!

[@MrCytree]

I know this is an old video Matt but I wanted to mention a few things in case you still read comments: 1- great job as always. Thanks again for the content. 2- I have seen several sources for war bow draw weights in excess of 120lbs as well. 3- I highly doubt a king would go through the trouble of training his citizens in archery, hire the cream of the crop, and then consider them cheap cannon fodder as the documentary suggests. I agree 100% that it is far more likely that they were respected fighters. I think you can infer that in addition to any sources, by the way, they rarely broke and ran despite clearly being in deep in several battles. The way the right-wing reformed at Verneuil seems pretty impressive to my untrained mind. 4- As far as injuries go. I would also think that the blunt force of a few longbow arrows hitting someone in the helmet would be quite devastating. It isn't as if they had shock proof helmets. It was a metal pot with separate padding under it. I don't care how tough you are, a few arrows in your forearms, shins, calves, hands, biceps, hip...is going to incapacitate anyone.

[@paulandsueroberts4121]

Happy new year Matt,keep up the good work and all the best for 2016.

[@rchave]

Great video :) I might suggest an experiment- offer a dozen people who say armour couldn't be penetrated the chance to harness up, and approach a dozen EWBS members shooting sharps. Then offer them a chance to fight a melee against a tight well ordered line, on a muddy slope, after hiking 250 yards uphill visors down. Then offer to combine the 2 experiments. Any reluctance or hesitation for these tests can account for why the French couldn't manage a solid, decisive charge to break the English line.

[@exploatores]

If they realy wanted to test it, the should have put the plate armour on a pig, with all the layors of armour under it. shoot with the right Bow, the right Arrow and arrowhead. Now it´s like fire a .22 lr target rifle at a Ballisticwest, and say that a modern military rifle sucks.

[@Tepid24]

+Exploatores Why not just get two guys, a suit of plate armour, a longbow and a team of doctors and then let them have at it from various distances?

[@exploatores]

Tyrannosaurus Rex in most countrys their are some laws forbiding it.

[@1tjos]

+Exploatores What sort of Backwards third world dictatorship would deny me my right to Fire an Arrow and my Friends. it's not like I would be unprepared I'd have a Medical crew.

[@phileas007]

+Exploatores As far as I know, the US tests live munitions on goats rather than pigs. Also the 22 has more than double the energy of the super-heavy war bow. Can you imagine.......

[@exploatores]

phileas007 a .22lr is the modern equivelent of a trick shooting bow. But it´s nothing you go to war with. .

[@jasonkelley9072]

so basically them trying to penetrate the steel with the arrow on top of something, is like me trying to punch through paper on a rock?

[@scholagladiatoria]

+Jacie Kelley A bit like that. They were using clay, I believe, which is commonly used to measure impact force from bullets, but in this case drastically changes how the steel plate responds to the arrow impact.

[@crwydryny]

+scholagladiatoria the sad thing is there is no lack of historical armour that is available to be used in such tests (one of the castles near where I live has so much armour that they often use peices to demonstrate it's effectiveness against weapons, cheep munitions grade stuffdating to the 15-1600s). I think the hardest thing to get ahold of is historically accurate bows (and people capable of using a bow with a draw of 150 lb) what I would like to see is someone taking a ballistic dummy, fitting it with full armour (gambison, mail, breastplate) then taking a medieval long bow with period accurate points and laying into it, starting at long range and slowly moving in until either they get into sword range of the dummy or until they penetrate. at least then we can put the whole debate to rest. that said the only account I've heard of an arrow penetrating plate armour talks of an arrow that punched through the thigh armour of a man on horseback, through the leg, though the seat of the saddle and deep enough into a horse to kill it.

[@Nighti88]

+scholagladiatoria Penetrating armor sems not that much down the list, if they use arrows that are made to penetrate armor rater than arrows that are made to penetrate mail or gambeson. So if they had to count on hitting a weak point they would have used arrows that are devastating in this weak points instead of arrows that can penetrate plate armor. won't they? The point with the direct shots depends on many points. The bow is also useless if the enemy is getting into close combat with the archer so it would be a good idea to stop them. How many arrows can be shot at point blank? per person? maybe 2? how many rows in a line can fire direct shots without hit the frontman? so it depends on the depth of the formation. if they have to fight in cc the line should not be that thin. How many arrows would one bowman have for his ammo? if he has 30 arrows for a 2h battle he can fire 4 arrows a minute in total. now there would be pauses for him when there are no targets, so he has quit a lot of arrows to spend on long range shooting. all that would influence the point of shooting ballistic or not

[@dmytroy]

+Nighti88 Need to also consider that you really do not want to be shooting till the last moment, you need time to drop your bow get your buckler and sword and setup for melee fight or you are dead man.

[@Nighti88]

+dmytroy Also an interesting point. Shooting the enemy at very short range und run behind friendly lines might be the better choice for a bowman if he had to face man at armes or knights in close combat.

[@aemolasse]

The material under the armour plate in the drop test is likely clay; it is one of the standard materials used for stab vest testing. There is a great deal of controversy on the efficacy testing of armour against stabbing weapons as different backing materials, ballistic gel, flesh, clay can give wildly differing results.

[@jessehall9816]

Your videos are epic and beyond informative, please keep up the great work

[@phileas007]

As far as I'm aware of it, most of the heavily armoured French nobility present during Agincourt were not killed by the archery. So seems like plate harness is actually more than sufficient. Therefore I think you're right about what the arrows were used for.

[@TheHarlequin13]

I remember watching that documentary as a teenager. I raged hard when they brought out the long bodkin and shot it at the flat piece of steel.

[@PenneyBack]

Excellent video Matt! More like this please

[@robertbarrey9670]

Interesting analysis. Worth noting that the energy of the arrow will fall off with distance - hence effectiveness increases with decreasing range. The French knights suffered from exhaustion due to mud, enclosed helmet (air supply reduced) and limited visibility as they needed to keep visor down. Their effectiveness only arose when they came within weapon range of English.

[@TruthBeliever5557]

100ibs longbow is more powerful than a 100ibs crossbow, with a faster rate of fireand longer range! 6 pence back then is about £150 back then, the English Bowmen trained since childhood, this proves their accuracy would've been super high. If we look at Medieval English History England was the only country that gave importance to archers, that glorified and dignified Archers compared to other countries in Europe!

[@leighrate]

The English Archers were volunteers who enlisted for 3 months (medieval campaign season), which is why Henry V makes reference to making a man's passport i. e. giving him his discharge papers and pay if he didn't want to stay.

[@c1v1c2v2]

Hey just a quick note, at 25:30 you mention that the plate's placed on a hard surface, it's clay. For impacts we can use clay to keep a record of the indentation so to say. Because during the impact some of the plate will end up bent towards the impactor at the edges and you can't also measure whether the entire plate smooshed (not a good engineering term, but it will do) the clay block. So the clay captures the image of the worst possible deformation sustained. We've also come up with some good clay recipes that simulate flesh well, or from measurements taken we can extrapolate and give equivalent damages sustained by flesh. But yeah everything else in that test is not representative of armour.

[@Schmunzel57]

A study about mechanical propertys of pattern welded steel showed very clearly that layers, especially with slag between them, make a steel less likely to be broken on impact.

[@Bluehawk2008]

"Point blank" refers to a range close enough that you can fire straight on without compensating for gravity. It does not mean muzzle (or arrowhead?) contact, contrary to common usage. So at 18:33 they are shooting "absolutely straight; point blank", not "almost point blank". Almost point blank would be aiming at their heads to hit their chests, or something to that effect.

[@andretorres75]

Very good analysis Matt. Cheers!

[@Shermingtan]

"The sword is an easy weapon to use, you just swing with it". Simple isn't it? I wish documentaries would shy away from simplistic views and black/white thinking. People are sophisticated and interested enough to for nuance and reality, no need to be simple. While archery isn't fencing, there is a little bit more to it then just drawing and releasing......especially with heavy war bows.

[@ImBarryScottCSS]

Ha! You've clearly never met 'my' people. Black and white is too open ended for them.

[@oblongobject7771]

Best longbow lecture I've seen on the internet to date.

[@omarkusturica3174]

I suspect that those high volleys of arrows were intended primarily to rain down on the horses, rather than on the riders.

[@roberttauzer7042]

I watched good Agincourt documentary here on YT in which guys were considering that french defeat was not caused as much by weapon/armor relation but elevation, terrain, mud, panic with science that describes movement of large number of people in emergency situations.

[@007KellyBal]

Very enjoyable vivisection of a sad attempt of a documentary.and happy new year Matt.

[@YoSoyFabrizioyTuNo]

I was confused, until at the last 5 minutes you explained why long bows helped win the battle. You're right, most of us don't know about actual history facts, but just what we've heard around. You should do a video explaining in more detail the battle of Agincourt.

[@chrissermoon4156]

I'll never be able to watch a historical documentary regarding arms again, without a good amount of skepticism. Thanks^^

[@RC1191217]

Good video. Both main points are confirmed by French contemporary sources. French crossbow formations were broken up by longbow attacks. Knights in plate were not concerned about their safety. They willingly went into combat against longbow formations...on foot. They deeply feared for their horses and often preferred to fight on foot rather than have their mounts killed by longbow volleys. Not to say that they sometimes attempted mass cavalry charges, just that those charges often failed due to the deaths of their horses. So what ScholaGladiatoria says is accurate. One point he doesn't touch on is just why the French fought as they did, given their loses during the war. The cultures of France and England were quite different. Some historians have concluded that the perceived damage to French society (and the French aristocracy) outweighed the adoption of the training methods and institutions used to produce English longbowmen. Watch with assurance. This guy knows his stuff.

[@ravendon]

Firepower is the military capability to direct force at an enemy. Through the ages firepower has come to mean offensive power applied from a distance, thus involving ranged weapons as opposed to one-on-one close quarters combat.

[@andy4an]

whoa, this is substantial. the lengths of your videos vary wildly!

[@rhemorigher]

+weesh ful Always keep the enemy guessing.

[@cthulusushi9064]

Really enjoyed the longer video, great counter arguments and well balanced

[@peterlarsen4809]

Thank you Matt. You have publicly stated all the problems I had with this documentary. I've seen similar poor documentaries comparing long swords to katanas. Perception bias dialed to maximum

[@billosby9997]

Content such as this is the reason I'm a subscriber.

[@michaelhenman4887]

Good video, hope that you make more with this new format.

[@Tzann]

Regarding longbowmen and sword fighting, I think to remember that the archers close to the center also picked up swords and helped the infantry, once the french broke through and, if I remember correctly, were insanely effective at that. So even for that Agincourt could serve as an example . . . if I am not mistaken . . .

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

Was Agincourt the battle when the French sent their pavise crossbowmen to charge without pavises because they were in a hurry, or was it a Crécy ? (or did they learn nothing from Crecy and did it again ?)

[@digitaljanus]

+scarfacemperor Crécy.

[@malnutritionboy]

There's Walpole

[@Cahirable]

Agincourt was the battle where experienced generals drew up an excellent plan to engage the English, but then the inexperienced leaders of the army ignored them and drew up their own plans. A huge proportion of English victories in the Hundred Years War are the result of poor generalship - often brought about by the circumstances of the time - and a good number of the remaining victories are likely due to superior English discipline, which resulted from the system of indenture that the English had been using and their method of organising the army into what we might call squads and platoons as well as larger formations.

[@leighrate]

+Jonathan Dean The English Archers were not indentured. They were freemen, the French were indentured something complained about at the time.

[@Cahirable]

+leighrate The modern definition of indenture is different to the medieval definition. Captains would make an agreement - known as an indenture - with the crown to provide a certain number of soldiers of specified types armed and armoured in a specified way. They would then either sign up me directly under another indenture - this time between the individual men and the captain - or sign up smaller units under another leader via sub-indentures. In a few cases, Agincourt especially, men would indent directly with the Crown, but this doesn't seem to have been the preferred method. There were several advantages to using indentures to raise an army. It simplified paperwork, ensured a level of martial competence that couldn't be guaranteed when using systems of Array and, most importantly, it meant the Crown didn't have to supply arms or armour to the army in general because, despite shires being responsible for this in theory, it was not uncommon for shires to attempt to unload this responsibility onto the Crown.

[@Verdunveteran]

Great video as usual, Matt! But I want to add one point you didn't mention thats extremely important in any combat situation: MORALE! No matter what degree of armour you would have worn at a battle like Agincourt for instance the soldiers fighting in them were not robots. They had feelings and fears like every human beeing. And these feelings and fears will have an effect on the morale of these soldiers. Getting showered by English arrows at Agincourt in 1415 must have been equally unpleasant and off course bad for the French combat morale as it was for example for the British soldiers who got showered with German machine gun bullits at the Somme on 1 July 1916. At some point the side getting showered on a massive scale by enemy projectiles will get pinned down or halted or even break and start fleeing. Combat morale will drop and at some point it will break. I think the English longbow at battles such as Agincourt would'nt have to be able to mow down all their enemies. It would be just as great a weapon of terror as the MG42 was for the allied troops in WWII because it will cause enemy casualties and it will sap the enemies morale at some point or another. Beeing showered by arrows would be causing panic and fear amongst those who see their brothers in arms getting killed or wounded by these arrows causing them to break and surrender or flee sooner or later. I think the utter terror of beeing bombarded by arrows on such a massive scale would be just as important a weapon as it's ability to penetrate diffrent types of armour.

[@SchlrFtrRkMystc]

Awesome video again Matt. Love your middle ground approach on this topic. So hard to be a midliner on this topic... I know.

[@bazza795]

Did someone say that the bow was easy to use? Ask a war bow archer. Another sensible video, keep up the good work.

[@Himmelvandrer]

@scholagladiatoria you should also look into the anatomy of a long bow archer, it aparently took about 20 years or more (aproxematly) to "educate"/"breed" an long bow archer compared to any other archer at its time. They had to practice/start at a very young age with archery as it required a lott of strength to shoot - in other words, a long bow archer was extremly time consuming and expensive to "breed". Aercheological excavations of long bow archers has clare signs of deformations as one part of the uper body were unproportioned developed/exercised.

[@tfd7915]

I agree with everything you said in your video. One thing not mentioned however is that at the battle of Agincourt it seems that it was not the longbow but Henry's axmen that were the decisive factor in victory. That and the mud. And the misplaced Elan of the French nobility.

[@Ultramasterjedi]

Hey Matt, have you ever played any of the Total War games? Do you have any idea how accurate they are in terms of historical strategy? I know they aren't the most accurate in terms of armor and weapons though not horrid

[@emporatikatrox]

I must state that i am a little bit disappointed that you did not, when noting the make up of the English army, note the Welsh mercenary buildup of the army and the invaluable experience earned from the Glyndŵr uprising showing the sheer quality of the troops making up the English army. Nothing personal but it does irritate me when people allude to the Welsh presence at the battle of Agincourt numbering around 750 mostly from the same region as King Henry V was actually born in, Monmouthshire. Great points made in the video however :D Just nitpicking due to my own nationality.

[@scholagladiatoria]

+Kallum The Welsh troops were indentured, same as the English, French and other nationalities in Henry's army. They weren't mercenaries as such. Southern Welsh soldiers had been serving in English armies for centuries, including against the Northern Welsh in Edward I's wars in Wales and Scotland.

[@emporatikatrox]

True, but because of the differing language they might as well have been mercenaries and the experience gained from Glyndŵr uprising would have been much more obvious in the Welsh troops since the vast majority of the soldiers on both the Kingdom of England and of Glyndŵr's side were both (modern day) welsh, though i concede large numbers of English soldiers would have gained experience from the uprising as well. Basically my point is the Welsh troops due to language differences would have acted like mercenaries did and not really work for the same cause as many other English and southern Welsh troops would have.

[@nikitaonassis6090]

+Kallum I get. your drift..essentially as analogolous to a financial definition, legal form over economic substance. Although being indentured by way of legal contract, they performed like a professional hired army.

[@nikitaonassis6090]

+Kallum unlike a long term indentured army which conveivably might be complacent where a hired professional might not be.

[@wrathanet]

This is actually a really fascinating video. I always thought (though was told by people who admittedly didn't have any particular knowledge on pre-WWI military history) that longbows were favored for volley fire, whereas crossbows were better at direct fire.

[@jonoldham5138]

I think it should be pointed out that even if just the head penetrates it might not just come out of the plate armour or shield. You could end up like a pincushion and still be unwounded, but you will still be hindered by the arrows stuck into your armour. Don't know how accurate this is but just an idea.

[@CarnalKid]

This is awesome, thanks Matt.

[@morrobaydan]

If you could clear this up as well: I assume cavalry charges were a slow canter up to the final 50 or less yards, when the horses were spurred to top speed and in a mass.

[@thomaszaccone3960]

Love this video and this narrator. I read a book whose name I can't recall, on English war bows. The author maintained, based on tests he had run, that an arrow from a powerful longbow didn't necessarily have to PENETRATE plate armor to be effective. The author maintained that such an arrow could generate significant blunt force trauma as to disable or seriously wound the target, particularly if the target was on horseback as the energy generated by impact would be magnified by the speed of the horse moving towards the arrow. Wonder if that is accurate?

[@danielthornebille6980]

I just linked your video to a forum for the 9th age fantasy battle game. So we can change the rules for archery in the game, it has represent reality a bit better;-) Continue with the high quality videos!

[@shogunlewis8901]

I've heard people talk about arrows piercing armour a lot and one point I've thought of but I haven't heard much or at all, is the idea that successive hits on armour could make it easier for arrows to penetrate. Do you think there's any truth in this?

[@50StichesSteel]

Highly doubt that. They either penetrate or they dont. successive non pentrating hits wont do much to weaken steel

[@blakewinter1657]

+Shogun Lewis The chances of hitting the same spot twice would be minimal. And unless the first shot really bent the steel, it wouldn't weaken it. Even if it bent it, it may not weaken it substantially. So I would guess that this is not a factor.

[@Cahirable]

That sounds more like the problems ceramic plates have with multiple bullet impacts. Metal is far more resilient.

[@timothym9398]

+Blake Winter Purely playing devil's advocate here. It could make a level of sense that if one arrow were to dent the armor inward before deflecting the next arrow (if hit in the exact same spot) could apply the entirety of its force directly without any of its energy being deflected away from the impact. Keep in mind, I think that even if this were true it would happen as such a rare occurrence that it wouldn't make any meaningful effect on a battle as a whole.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

+Shogun Lewis An arrow hit can dent the metal, stretching it out so that it's thinner and a second hit in the same place will face a weaken target. As the arrows would have to hit the same small sport it not much of a problem.

[@blasty137]

Mike Loades has a great documentary on the longbow in his Weapons that Made Britain series, he tested it against a breastplate in a military laboratory simulating penetration at various distances.

[@Jazzman-bj9fq]

Hmmm, I thought one of the main reasons for the defeat of the French was that the English made good use of the terrain (which in itself to me is one of the first decisions to consider as a military commander) and thereby the French were forced to maneuver in muddy and extremely deep low ground which effectively halted their march. Matt, you should seriously be the go to expert on Medieval warfare on the History Channel. I'm a fan of the History Channel in their military history programming but even though I'm not an expert on any particular field I do read quite a lot and find some faults in their viewpoints just based on reasoning, lol. Keep up the great work, Matt!

[@tsgillespiejr]

The look on your face when you paused before saying "analyze" kind of made me think you were deciding between saying that or "rip the shit out of" lol. Happy to see you did both.

[@blairbuskirk5460]

Thank you for addressing that their test" armour " was flat and not convex in anyway

[@Dragonite43]

Interesting video. It makes me curious as I have an old game called "Age of Empires II" and the game came with a manual. In it it talks about Longbows. "The longbow was very tall, 5 or 6 feet long, and crafted from a single piece of wood, commonly yew. It fired 3-foot-long arrows at a great range and, in the hands of an expert, could be extremely accurate. Edward I (Longshanks) of England grasped the value of this weapon and the English thereafter employed large contingents in their Middle Age armies. All sports other than archery were banned on Sundays to ensure that archers practiced. The long bow was used effectively in long-range barrages against massed troops, firing thin pointed arrows called bodkins that could pierce armor. Arrows were fired simultaneously by thousands of archers and aimed at a distant area rather than a specific target. Enemy troops within the area were forced to receive the barrage with no cover but their armor and shields. The barrage caused casualties and reduced enemy morale. The most famous examples of this tactic were the great English victories at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt during the Hundred Years War. French knights recalled with horror the awful sound of thousands of arrows in flight and the sky turning dark from their shafts."

[@Dragonite43]

I forgot that they did one about Bodkin Arrows. "The bodkin arrow was an innovation that made archers of all types more effective against men wearing armor. The bodkin was simply a straight point intended to puncture, rather than a typical broad point intended to slice as it penetrated. The broad point was fine for hunting or use against unarmored targets, but armor effectively dissipated its energy. The bodkin concentrated its power in the point and could penetrate any armor at a sufficiently short range. The English longbowmen at Agincourt lofted barrages of bodkin arrows down upon the dense ranks of French knights. The bodkins, aided by the force of gravity, penetrated helmets, shoulders, legs, and arms when they stuck perpendicularly to the face of armor. " The link is where it shows a picture of a Bodkin arrow as depicted in the manual. ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Bodkin_Arrow After that, there are a few more times in which the longbow or longbowmen are mentioned in different places in the manual. Thumb Ring "The typical archer of the Middle Ages drew the bowstring back to his chest to fire. English Longbowmen had the ability to draw back to their cheek, increasing the power and distance of their shots. Archers from Asia developed a thumb ring that made it possible to draw back to their ear or beyond. When this improvement was added to their already very powerful composite bows, their weapons provided quite effective." Yeomen "The longbow developed in Wales became a favored British weapon under Edward I, who quickly understood how it could be effectively deployed. British longbowmen played havoc against French armies through the Hundred Year's War. British free men, called yeomen, were skilled and highly motivated by self-interest. The pay and loot from a successful campaign in France could set up a man in business for life." Archery Range "Missile weapons like the bow carried over into the Middle Ages from ancient times in most areas of the world. Northern Europe was an exception for many centuries because the dense forests of the region nullified the range advantage of bows. Throwing weapons like axes, javelins, and knives were more popular there. As the forests were cleared, use of the bow spread. Training with missile weapons took place at the archery range. The training of bowmen was especially favored in England, where every town had an archery range and competitions were held each week to encourage practice. From its large pool of archers, England could easily recruit several thousand expert longbowmen for armies going to France. As crossbows and early firearms came into use, men were trained to operate these weapons at a modified archery range."

[@meltedplasticarmyguy]

Matt, there is a book called "How to Lose a Battle: Foolish Plans and Great Military Blunders". It doesn't really go into the equipment but rather the tactics and decisions made in pivotal battles e.g. the battle of Agincourt. There are a lot that can be construed as speculation mainly because there really is no historical documentation for some of the battles listed. It is an interesting read, however.

[@dbrandow]

As a mild quibble, I think you are being pretty generous in considering mild steel and wrought iron to be roughly equivalent: mild steel has (very) roughly double the tensile strength of wrought iron.

[@MasterDrewboy]

Hey Matt! I'm trying to write fantasy novels and I'm trying to research medieval times. What are the best sources(books, tv, documentary, videos- yours included) that you know for info on medieval warfare/ martial arts? Anything helps

[@scarlet8078]

Good vid. I would've liked to hear about crossbows also. Through most of the medieval era, arrows shot from a fully drawn longbow by a strong male archer had greater power than crossbow bolts, due to the arrow being approx twice as heavy as bolts, the male archer having trained from childhood, draw length/ force, speed, etc. However, crossbows exceeded power of other bows in later periods, and they were always a better choice for smaller or less trained fighters. Even during medieval times, there are accounts of women and children using crossbows during dire circumstances. They could have never used longbows. Bernard Cornwell, a historical author who's written some enjoyable books about Agincourt and other battles, has a crossbow woman. Interestingly, there was a strong prejudice against all snipers as being cowards and murderers who did not follow honorable rules of war.