You actually went down in the trenches called the comment section searching for reason. I salute you brave soul.
@tisFrancesfault
5 жыл бұрын
In general, at least at the moment, Tod's comments are fairly civil, and constructive. Which is a fair blessing online. So it's less a trench walk and more a scenic walk in a wooded gully :p
@privatebaldric8767
5 жыл бұрын
The hero we need, but don't deserve 😄
@peterlynch1458
5 жыл бұрын
We're a pretty decent bunch, not the gaggle of nazis and barn animals on...some other cahnnels.
@jeffreyroot7346
5 жыл бұрын
It's not like the Garandthumb comments section after all!
@sergeantbigmac
5 жыл бұрын
@@jeffreyroot7346 GarandThumbs comment section might be one of the wildest things on KZitem. Ive never seen anything quite like it lol
@dace48
5 жыл бұрын
One thing that the tests failed to address was that during the battle of Agincourt many of the English archers were very ill from dysentery, so much so that reports stated that many cut away the backs of their trousers to save time. In future experiments I suggest that you force feed Joe several curries/baked beans/Newcastle Brown Ale and laxatives before the experiment takes place. This should replicate the effects on the English archers at the time of battle, an effect which is known in modern Britain as "Sunday mornings."
@andrewwhitehurst8672
5 жыл бұрын
Pack up. It’s been found. You sir or ma’am, get my personal award for the greatest comment of 2019.
@Tennouseijin
5 жыл бұрын
@Frankthetank123098 especially if they stick the spare arrows in the 'soil' as was often done on battlefields. Biological weapons at their finest! Now we know why many knights would die of wound infections.
@andrewsuryali8540
4 жыл бұрын
@@Tennouseijin "Francois, why is your magnificently gilded breastplate turning brown? I did not see you fall into the mud." "What? No, Gilbert it was all those English arrows that kept hitting my...... Oh! Those @&%$£&!:$!!!!!"
@erikjarandson5458
4 жыл бұрын
This explains the English victory. The French knights lifted their visors so they could clutch their noses. Also, when the front line tried to back away from the stench, they'll have caused confusion and worsened the press. Some may even have fainted. What a way to go!
@Tennouseijin
4 жыл бұрын
@@erikjarandson5458 And any knights who would try to put fabric etc. inside their helmets like a gas mask to block the stench, would have reduced their vision and breathing even further.
@bretalvarez3097
5 жыл бұрын
I’ve said once and I’ll say it again, that was one of the best experimental archeology videos ever put on KZitem.
@Gunnar120
5 жыл бұрын
Agreed. I'm incredibly excited to see what Todd and these gents are going to test next.
@TheBockenator
5 жыл бұрын
I wish they'd shot it a few more times.
@Gew219
5 жыл бұрын
One of the best? Is there something other of similar quality?
@bretalvarez3097
5 жыл бұрын
@Christian Changer Mike Loades made a video a few years back where he tested a warbow against a historical gambeson, it was pretty good but Tod’s video is definitely better.
@beavisbutt-headson3223
4 жыл бұрын
Did you mean archerology videos?
@CacklingAntagonist
5 жыл бұрын
Can we just talk about the level of Depth that Tod has gone into in this video series? Truly remarkable, some of the best content on KZitem
@Snarkbar
5 жыл бұрын
Some of the best content on the subject, period.
@bright890
5 жыл бұрын
Just wanted to say that I appreciate how unique your channel is. Your passion is fantastic, and I learn a heck of a lot every time I watch. Your production quality is fantastic these days too. Keep up the great work mate!
@peter4210
5 жыл бұрын
I second that opinion
@unshackledjester
5 жыл бұрын
@@peter4210 thirded, and very much hoping the videos pull enough money to allow for this to become a series. I'd love to see a sort of hand made mythbusters style with professionally done weapons and armor in various situations.
@SwadianKnight101
5 жыл бұрын
Unshackled Jester and I second your opinion. I would love to see that as well.
@unshackledjester
5 жыл бұрын
@@SwadianKnight101 given he pulled like 2 million views, I'm assuming that the funding should take care of itself. I'm thinking it is more scheduling both the time to do said videos/time for the professionals to manage to get around to it at the same time and to ensure he puts out the videos slowly enough to not drive off the hype. It sucks, but better to do it slow and steady for a long time than burst through a quick run of epic vids that result in it fizzling as people stop tuning in every time
@martinkavanagh196
5 жыл бұрын
@@SwadianKnight101 May I "Fifth" that opinion please .. He does an honest job .. which is much valued in this era.
@metatronyt
5 жыл бұрын
Hey Todd, Thanks for mentioning me. Wonderful video again, I think you have addressed everything in a very accurare and professional way. I watched this video while having pizza. I don't know why I told you this last piece of information but hey. Keep it up!
@neruneri
3 жыл бұрын
Of course you wrote this while eating Pizza. Of course you did :D
@mogz2180
3 жыл бұрын
The real question is, was it good pizza? Lol!
@book3100
3 жыл бұрын
Funny, I just had some pizza too.
@knearhood8
3 жыл бұрын
because you like pizza
@1johnnygunn
3 жыл бұрын
Now i have the memory of a neopolitan restaurant resurrected in my mind, the craving for fresh sauce & herbs with melted cheese made the previous day.... We have it all in Wisconsin.
@ZarlanTheGreen
5 жыл бұрын
A follow-up video, addressing and answering comments? Now that's a rare sight. Nice.
@GiskardRevenlov
5 жыл бұрын
And a quality level headed one too
@danyoutube7491
5 жыл бұрын
@@GiskardRevenlov Yes, I really liked this.
@jasoncornish2904
5 жыл бұрын
No kidding! Thanks to the creators! I'm not even super into this sort of thing but I subscribed over this. Very thoughtful and well done
@NUSensei
5 жыл бұрын
I haven't done anything to contribute to this discussion, other than sharing the video and praising it as one of the best researched test videos on arrows and armour. This response to comments furthers the depth that the team has gone through to respect the historical authenticity that we know of. Well done.
@chengkuoklee5734
5 жыл бұрын
Tod: "Medieval Smiths! Assemble!" Joe: "You have my bow." Will: " You have my arrows." Kevin: " You have my armour." Chrissi: " You have my paddings." Tobias: " You have my scrolls." Tod: " Let's (after 30 seconds loading crossbow) end this rightly." (to be continue)
@peterlynch1458
5 жыл бұрын
Matt Easton: You have my knobkerrie.
@kwanarchive
5 жыл бұрын
@@peterlynch1458 Isn't the dreaded Context his favourite weapon?
@Heroesflorian
5 жыл бұрын
And then comes Skallagrim throwing a deadly pommel into the mix!
@johnmccallum9106
5 жыл бұрын
Crossbows don't have pommels.
@Heroesflorian
5 жыл бұрын
@@johnmccallum9106 they also don't have armour or paddings, etc. But that's just not the point here. Besides... who says crossbows cannot have pommels in the first place?! If you want a pommel on your crossbow, there's nothing preventing you from adding one.
@realisticphish
5 жыл бұрын
I feel like a lot of people were taking this as "it would be cool to see a longbow arrow pierce a breastplate" instead of "here is a case study with relatively accurate gear". Frankly, I find the null results FAR more interesting, as it leads to deeper questions about tactics, psychology, etc
@elgostine
5 жыл бұрын
i mean weve been plinking arrows at good breastplates all over the net, lindybeige filmed an armourer showing his breastplate being hit with a 150l bow as well and it did bugger all. hence why, s i said in the video comments, i am FAR more interested in testing the smaller but still essential armour pieces, cuisses, helmets and helmet visors, aventails, voiders. the breastplate wont likely fail but those areas failing or holding up is likely where most of the wounds would be sustained
@secularnevrosis
3 жыл бұрын
@@elgostine This is a late comment..but! The tactical advantage of raining arrows on an advancing enemy is probably huge. The knights that are walking over the battlefield have to close their visors and look down to mitigate the risk of getting an arrow in a less protected part of the helmet. The sound of swarms of arrows hitting you and the rest of your line would be loud. To all that we can add the slippery and wet conditions at Agincourt. Its easy to think of something could and would go wrong. Keeping in formation without hearing commands or seeing exactly what is happening would be very hard indeed. And if you and your men manage to close with the enemy line you have been walking all that way with a closed visor. Chances are that you all will at the very least be exhausted.
@leavesinautumn5959
5 жыл бұрын
All valid points, I didn't have many of the concerns some others seem to have had but appreciate the greater insight into the decisions made. Looking forward to the next in the series.
@chengkuoklee5734
5 жыл бұрын
The parameters they chose are reasonable.
@platypusbuk
5 жыл бұрын
Many of the comments you responded to seemed like they didn't pay attention to the context of the original video. Pitty people wasted your time.
@ArcaionV
5 жыл бұрын
thats a good point.
@tinman1843
5 жыл бұрын
100% correct! Everything Tod says in this video, he said in the first one. It's as if the people who were complaining didn't pay attention the first time. Of course, they probably won't pay attention this time either. :(
@jinxhead4182
5 жыл бұрын
Seems to be an internet thing, people agitating themselves over something they did not read/listen to in it's entirety. Pretty common, but you are 100% correct.
@garethlloyd1445
4 жыл бұрын
Exactly and what daft questions in my opinion. Why did they not do this and why do that? Why didn't they use a cannon? stupid. People with doubts with zero knowledge of that time, the battle nor are they blacksmiths etc
@ghandimauler
4 жыл бұрын
The internet has created many platofrms that allow anyone, no matter how well educated or not, no matter how informed and intelligent or not, to have a say. It is literally the entire bell curve of quality in replies when maybe only the top two sigma are worth the time. I guess it is empowering, but not necessarily elevating the discourse.
@Legitpenguins99
5 жыл бұрын
Idk Todd, Brits and sheds have a very unique relationship in history
@Legitpenguins99
5 жыл бұрын
Side note: i just learned that if you edit (i had to correct a minor spelling error) a "favorited" comment, it losses its "favorite" status. I suspect this is to prevent commentors from messing with content creators by changing harmless comments into awful or offensive remarks
@PulseOfOpposites
5 жыл бұрын
Ian actaully got angry? Tell me. Which video, and when.
@emilyscloset2648
3 жыл бұрын
@@Legitpenguins99 did it get re favourited then?
@diazinth
5 жыл бұрын
The maturity of this video is astounding and quite refreshing in the YT landscape. You seem to approach this as an adult or teacher imo should; acknowledging the questions, factual, relaxed, to the point and with the ability to say "I don't know" or "someone else can answer this better than me". Bravo!
@kevindecarvalhocampos6868
5 жыл бұрын
Have you thought about opening up a kickstarter campaign to make a full documentary on the subject of armour vs arrows?
@MrDemonWorm
4 жыл бұрын
"Lucky" hits are actually far easier with several dozen (or hundred) archers making the same shot, at the same target, at the same time.
@Kriegerdammerung
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, the Lionheart died from a crossbow that hit him in the throat. And one bets that a warrior king must have worn the best armour available.
@lscibor
2 жыл бұрын
@@Kriegerdammerung From what I gather, Richard was actually hit in the shoulder, died of gangrene two weeks later, and most importantly, sources closest to the event mention that he wasn't wearing any armor, only his helmet. So probably not relevant here.
@shockwave6213
2 жыл бұрын
@@lscibor Which begs the question: "Why in god's name was he not wearing his armor???" You'd think a king out on campaign would wear the best armor available. As king, he probably had access to the best Gambeson, Mail hauberks, Coifs and possibly even a coat of plates.
@senatorjosephmccarthy2720
2 жыл бұрын
@@shockwave6213 , Same reason some leaders have worn red, moved across in front of their company, etc. To inspire their men. They come to be doing it for their leader, a stable and real thing to hang on to. I made a concrete decision to enjoy the adventure, to replace the fear. It worked.
@FistOfNorthStar3
2 жыл бұрын
@@shockwave6213 I don't know the specifics here but I can think of many times in history when a commander was not wearing armor for one reason or another. For example there is Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome from 361-363 AD. He was killed in the field when he was fighting without wearing armor for whatever reason and died from his wounds
@andrewrobinson4019
5 жыл бұрын
Well, my biggest question: Will there be more tests? was answered! I’m very much looking forward to the next videos. Thanks lads for all the work you’ve done and are doing.
@jjtomecek1623
3 жыл бұрын
1 year later and we got nothing new :( Thanks corona.
@DavidEllis94
2 жыл бұрын
I know I'm very late to the discussion on this, but regarding the question of "How did the English win at Agincourt if the longbow could not penetrate French armor?": Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only tangible benefit on the battlefield comes from killing shots through the breastplate head-on, and that if your shots aren't scoring kills, you aren't being useful. There are still plenty of avenues for longbow hits to have contributed in a critical role to the English victory. Don't think of it as being a leading contributor of kills, necessarily. Think of it as degrading the ability of the French army to operate due to wounds--yes, non-lethal wounds--and fatigue, both physical and psychological. First off, consider the psychological impact of being under fire from those heavy arrows coming down, or, as the case may be, coming straight at you and your comrades. As Tod mentions here, there's always the sense that you're not safe. You *know* there are weak points in your armor, and all it takes is one lucky arrow to find its mark, or for some of those splinters to slip in somewhere and cause some harm. More to the point, even if the arrows are not penetrating, one can't imagine the sensation of an impact would be comfortable. That has to contribute to the psychological strain as well, and imagine having to suffer through the dread of arrows pinging off of your armor like dozens of little hammers banging away at you while your formation trudges across open ground. You can't very well charge forward across that whole distance, and you'd much rather cluster together with your brothers in arms instead of breaking ranks to rush forward, so you can't very well use speed to reduce the time during which you're under fire. Sure, your armor is keeping you safe, but that's only good for as long as you can hold it together. That psychological strain has an exhaustion all its own. Men reaching the English lines already a bit worn down from the barrage--both physically and mentally--are going to be easier to break. Secondly, and just as importantly, you're not just dealing with arrows hitting the front of your breastplate, where your armor is thickest. Not only do you have those gaps to worry about, but the armor isn't of uniform thickness. Consider Tod's test shooting at brigandine. Those arrows punched through 1.2mm mild steel plates. That's not to say any and all 1.2mm plates of iron-based metal would be equally vulnerable; angles matter a lot as well, for example. However, we can already see ways in which armor at the periphery is more vulnerable. Arrows striking the inside of the elbow, for example, might penetrate, or might penetrate through a plate elsewhere on a limb. Thinner plates offer other opportunities for penetration. And then, as soon as you've been wounded, you're no longer as effective in combat. Either you are brave and resilient enough to keep fighting despite a physical injury or you have to withdraw from the line. Either way, that is a longbow arrow that has degraded the effectiveness of the French army, right there. All of those factors add up.
@monkeyboy275bobo8
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting points. I dont know which war exactly this reffered to but i think it was vietnam where some traps were specificly designed not to kill but to wound the enemy. The thought is that it is more ressource consuming to treat and evacuate a wounded soldier than it is to just have a dead body. And the alternative to just end them right there or leave wounded people to die slowly or fall into the hands of the enemy would probably drop your troops moral signifficantly, to know you will get abandoned by your comrades is a horrible thought imo so eitherway having people wounded sucks. Again i dont know how accurate that information is but it made sense to me and fits perfect with your train of thought.
@paultequlabeer
Жыл бұрын
That tactic has been used throughout the history of warfare. To the point snipers will let a wounded soldier live so those attempting help are new targets. Amazing scene in full metal jacket shows it spectacularly.
@DavidEllis94
Жыл бұрын
@@paultequlabeer That's not even really what I'm referring to. That was the sniper letting a wounded soldier act as bait. I'm talking about, on an even more superficial level, an injured man can no longer fight at full capacity and, often times, he would probably withdraw rather than proceed to join the attack knowing that his limb or shoulder has an arrow lodged in it. He's not dead, and his armor may well have done its job, but you've still taken a man out of the fight.
@paultequlabeer
Жыл бұрын
@@DavidEllis94 similar to how punji pits caltrops snipers purposefully wounding are all able to degrade the effectiveness of the unit as a whole. Again tons of examples throughout history so while you’re “not even referring to” my initial example it’s a very similar tactic.
@sergarlantyrell7847
5 жыл бұрын
The people complaining about Joe's technique sound like they've never pulled a bow over 90 lbs in their life. Also, what makes them think that that would affect the outcome? The same bow, same arrow, same velocity, same distance, same target. So the result will be the same.
@beardedbjorn5520
5 жыл бұрын
I think all the people criticising his technique, all probably shoot 60lb compound bows.
@henrikg1388
5 жыл бұрын
My longbow is 90 lbs. It is well suited to me, but and extra 60-70 lbs would make it way to much for a aimed shot, if I even could pull it. I guess I would need lots of extra training.
@theghost7277
5 жыл бұрын
I own a 150 and a 200 and it only takes 15 minutes before I am exhausted
@HistoricalWeapons
4 жыл бұрын
Im shooting 170@32 u have to pull that way for the immense draw weight
@Full_monty
5 жыл бұрын
It's badass that u are addressing criticism Alot of channels wouldnt even acknowledge any questions
@Tibovl
4 жыл бұрын
@BLUE DOG I think literally everyone noticed that. It has been pointed out on every video ever about armor why there is a bulge on the chestplate.
@Tibovl
4 жыл бұрын
@BLUE DOG Because you actually don't precisely aim with a warbow. Well you try to. But you are aiming at moving troops that are relatively far away. Also they didn't set out to discover whether or not the arrow would pierce a helmet or a leg piece. They set out to discover whether or not it would pierce a breastplate.
@ghandimauler
4 жыл бұрын
@@Tibovl When I was young and was into medieval RPGs, I had a miniature in plate that had the huge bulging stomach/breast plate... we used to call that 'fat mail' (vs. plate mail) but it makes more sense having seen the historical armour in action. I'd bet a lot of prettier looking armours wouldn't be half as effective.
@ghandimauler
4 жыл бұрын
@BLUE DOG Doubting it's simple to hit the eyes through a good helmet well designed to also deflect shots. It might be your best bet, but it may well not still be a great bet and the odds of missing entirely go up. Were it me, I'd guess to shoot for the thighs, knees, and upper arms with elbows. The joints will be less well armoured likely and the if you get through what might well be thinner armour on the upper arm or leg, you can hit pretty major veins and arteries (esp the leg). With an arm down or a leg out, the knight may well be mission killed.
@ghandimauler
4 жыл бұрын
@@Tibovl If you are shooting at any formation in mail or lighter armour (not knights), center of mass is a good bet for maximum number of hits and maximum effect. Now, if they were firing straight (vs. arced) and at ranges 30m and under, they they might be able to try a headshot, but your odds of a miss go up. Shoot for the body, try to find an armour join or a bending joint or the side or rear of a limb that might be easier to penetrate. Of course, if they were horsed (not this case), shoot the horse. They have less armour and taking them out removes the mobility and shock power plus the collapse could pin or kill the knight.
@jeffsmith2283
5 жыл бұрын
I wonder if you could partner with a car safety testing lab and get access to a real crash test dummy with all its built in sensors.
@AikenFrost
5 жыл бұрын
That would be freaking cool!
@loddude5706
5 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure they consider war bows a road safety hazard these days . . . 'it's all in the past, the rest is history.' : )
@GunFunZS
5 жыл бұрын
You can get Arduino shields with the accelerometers. About $50 usd, to build a data logger for enertia, iv would think. Pressure sensors cost more.
@Chasmodius
5 жыл бұрын
That might be a way to get around the problems of developing a test rig for a mounted knight.
@fulalbatross
5 жыл бұрын
Would a crash dummy really be able to provide relevant data in other circumstances than crashes? I'm under the impression those sensors are highly specialised for that very specific job. But if not, I'm voting for this idea!
@johntheknight3062
5 жыл бұрын
Why you didn't use machine gun to get through the armor? Would be much more effective. Jeez.
@MCAroon09
5 жыл бұрын
At least a pistol! Is it really that difficult!?
@absolutepineapple4115
4 жыл бұрын
@@MCAroon09 all of you are pathetic, clearly the best option and historically accurate method is a nuke.
@garethlloyd1445
4 жыл бұрын
I always thought that when we had soldiers in red coats firing those gunpowder guns in 18 century against the enemy in steel armour and fired arrows from a bow from 13 or 14 century The red coat would be wiped out by the arrows lol.
@johntheknight3062
4 жыл бұрын
@@garethlloyd1445 lol
@karlfranzemperorofmandefil5547
4 жыл бұрын
@@garethlloyd1445 well guns have way larger ranges
@robotslug
5 жыл бұрын
I've been waiting for a followup! Watching now. The first episode was better than nearly any big budget show. I'm eager for more similar content.
@TheOnlyToblin
5 жыл бұрын
10:05 - Anyone who has ever seen people shoot these heavy bows will recognize the draw style. I'm surprised that was even a question raised.
@emmettfitz-hume9408
5 жыл бұрын
Definitely. When you are talking draw weights as big as they were talking, you don't just draw it like any other bow unless you are Hercules. With a little training, I managed to draw a 200 lb. bow once. Once. And the way that I had to bend my body, to use every muscle I had, was very similar to the way it was shown in the video.
@HistoricalWeapons
5 жыл бұрын
Where did you get the 200lb, I currently shoot 140lb but i cannot find heavier bows
@emmettfitz-hume9408
5 жыл бұрын
@@HistoricalWeapons My local fish and hunting club has an Archery program every year that lasts two weeks . Its a driv eto get more people interested in Archery (they started it after the uptick i interest after The Hunger Games movies). They had a guy from the UK there who was running a seminar on the longbow. He had a 200lb. bow and was giving some instruction on it. I would never purchase one myself. Too heavy, too difficult for me to use. Too expensive!
@dynamicworlds1
5 жыл бұрын
How many people have seen that though? A lot of the test shooting videos out there I've seen have been at about 80-100lbs because that's all they could manage.
@HistoricalWeapons
5 жыл бұрын
@@dynamicworlds1 im doing some tests with 170-200lb bows
@SilvioCM
5 жыл бұрын
Tod, the channel is amazing, specially for me, a fan of the subject. Thanks for the dedication and for the great work! Been in a distant country with no Medieval history (Brazil), it is a great pleasure to find a channel such as yours. Keep up the great work! Cheers!
@ztyhurst
4 жыл бұрын
One thought that I had as I was watching this is the shape of the Breastplate had a lot to do with dissipating the energy of the arrow, and I am curious how much effectiveness is lost as more dents are made to it. One example, a Knight gets whacked in the belly with a mace and makes a large dent, which is followed by a hardened tip arrow. Another example, 5 Archers singled out one knight and pelted that knight with 5 arrows at once in 3 volleys. Could arrows compromise the shape of the armor enough that one arrow would not glance off the side any more and penetrate it?
@sabo55
5 жыл бұрын
Damn that bows pretty.
@elperronimo
5 жыл бұрын
Calm down it's just a piece of wood.
@treelore7266
5 жыл бұрын
bow woods are prettier than bows themselves
@nightslayer78
5 жыл бұрын
You are pretty.
@addisme7561
5 жыл бұрын
You should see the pretty bow in my shaft. 🤥🤤🤢🥵
@Kelnx
5 жыл бұрын
I thought "how Agincourt was won" had been beaten to death for a long time. Why are people still thinking it was because the English turned the French into pin cushions by using a thousand Legolas's against their knights? The French had put all of their eggs into one basket, relying entirely on the full armored charge of their knights to rout the English. As was the case in most medieval battles (that we know of), it wasn't about killing your enemy so much as routing them. As in making them say "Eff this noise, I'm getting out of here". The English had a diverse enough army, but lots of longbows, not ALL longbows as the myth goes. For a long time, people thought the English archers just picked off French knights on horseback or something and won the day. Or worse, they shot a million arrows in the sky, blotting out the Sun all 500 style. What actually happened was the weather was garbage, the French couldn't really get a charge going through mud and slop, and so they turned themselves promptly into foot-knights. And slogged at a slightly quick pace through a soup of a battlefield. Add in all those friggin arrows flying all over the place and exploding into chaos, the French basically did a self-own and lost a battle they could have easily won by being more cautious, flexible, and traditional. Basically the French committed to a single tactic and it was the wrong day of the year for it. A lesson many lesser generals have learned the hard way throughout history. The English didn't get lucky either, they simply used what they had and took advantage of the situation. Which is what smart generals and commanders do. Just want to say this comment is more about other comments and not about the arrows vs armor video, which I thought was fantastic. I'd read about arrows exploding and some of the chaos it caused in old battles, but never saw it in action before. Your video really put it into perspective. Imagine hundreds of projectiles doing that all over the place every few seconds or so. That's how real warfare is in about any period, not quite so tame as in movies. War is just utter chaos.
@MinSredMash
5 жыл бұрын
There was a small cavalry charge of only 700 knights, followed by a foot assault of thousands. Everyone seems to imagine that the French all fell off their horses, then kept coming. Not so.
@Gustav_Kuriga
4 жыл бұрын
If there were any horses, they died. I highly doubt everyone had the same quality armor either...
@NEMTOMZkr
5 жыл бұрын
Really!? Anyone criticised that video!? Some people are never satisfied! Idiots! It was brilliant!
@dynamicworlds1
5 жыл бұрын
A lot of the "criticism" was noting variables not tested in the video, especially since it was stated that there would be follow up tests and was given respectfully and constructively. Not all, of course, as it it the internet, but surprisingly the large majority of it.
@duchessskye4072
5 жыл бұрын
I must say though that there's a surprising amounts of sources from Agincourt that mention a lot of knights getting killed by arrows. It seems like visors were particularly "easily" penetrated, likely owing to the breaths. Some of the sources do imply breastplates being penetrated as well, which I believe could certainly be possible in two situations: 1. When the breastplates are weaker. And to reinforce this point I will mention some armour regulations from 1448 France. Said regulations states that a plate cuirass should be proofed with 2 marks if it was windlass crossbow-proof or with 1 mark if it was proof against lever crossbows or _bows._ However the bows that the English used were more powerful than the French ones, and I'd probably put the power they delievered at closer to the mark of a windlass. Meaning that if you had armour in a similar grade as the single-proofed armour, it may get penetrated at close ranges. 2. The second situation would be if arrows hit the same place a few times. One arrow may leave a dent, but hit with two or three in the same place and it will likely pierce. And while this seems uncommon, it perhaps is not when you send thousands upon thousands of arrows downrange. The chance goes from highly unlikely to somewhat plausible. Of course it bears to mention that if every single arrow fired did damage, then the French would never have reached the lines of the English and there would never be a melee (even if one particular source says something along the lines of 'No one arrow flied without wounding', however I have my doubts about that statement). But even if a mere 10% of arrows found their mark, that effect would be quite profound and in line with what is described in the accounts of the battle.
@blaubarblaubar4436
5 жыл бұрын
Draugr the Greedy quite interesting input! Thanks for sharing your thoughts, sounds plausible.
@135Fenrir
5 жыл бұрын
Something to keep in mind, I believe that the English forced the French to cross a field...after a rain, hence why there were no horses or mounted charges. Knights would have gotten bogged down in the mud, slower and easier pickings with more volleys able to be fired. On top of the ones who simply got stuck and became, according to one source I read (I am sorry, I can't remember what the source is), so deeply mired in the muck that when the archers walked out onto the field they simply strode up to the stuck knights (they wore no armor so could move fairly easily), flipped open their visor and stabbed them in the eyes.
@redgrey1453
5 жыл бұрын
@@135Fenrir I think that last is reasonable, given testing of armor steel in mud done in another video on another channel, and the force required to extract it (while those with cloth shoes had no trouble, those with armored feet were well and truly stuck. Those who fell down were also well and truly stuck. Victims for those dastardly English peasants with their daggers.
@bakters
5 жыл бұрын
My personal belief is that your first point might be close to what has actually happened. There is a video of a Polish bladesmith, who builds his blades from historical material and then tests such a blade against historical steel. Search for "legenda polskiej sztuki wyrobu oręża - Festiwal Tajemnic 2014" to find the video. The testing starts around 21:30 mark. He starts with historical iron, then proceeds to modern iron and finally modern mild steel. His blade is capable of simply cutting the historical material with ease and no damage to the edge at all. Modern iron is much tougher, modern mild steel is on yet another level. The brestplate tested in Todd's video was built from modern steel. It's hard to tell how much better it is than what was available in XVth century, but most probably it does not reflect the quality of the vast majority of armor available back then. I mean, there must have been a reason for using bodkin points as shown around 1:50 mark... We even know this particular bodkin was shot at something hard, because the tip rolled over. A point shaped like that is bad at piercing maile, it's not very good against flesh and it only makes sense as plate-piercing device.
@buzzkrieger3913
5 жыл бұрын
Taking a simple look at the outcomes of all the battles it's pretty clear that without a defensive setup the English forces were overrun. That gives an impression that multiple arrow strikes are needed for effective archery.
@koookeee
3 жыл бұрын
Dear Tod (and crew), in the web wide world of hysteria, half-facts and hypocrisy and Clickbaiting, you stand as a rock of reason, common sense and hard work. Thank you for all your efforts.
@Tarburz
5 жыл бұрын
Interviewer: "Big question, this is the one I always ask you medievalists. You got an arrow like this. A thick shafted, bodkin tipped arrow like this, can it punch through plate armour?" Toby Capwell: ........ Not really... But it doesn't matter. If you... One of the things I've been asking myself in the last couple of days as I've been thinking more about this is "Did Henry V do the math?" Because if you actually sit down and start doing a few calculations, there's a very, very strange effect that happens, and you find that the longbow doesn't actually have to be that effective against armour on this scale. The numbers really stack up in the English favor. If Henry's sitting down and does the figures, It's very clear that even if the archers are only shooting 4 arrows a minute, and that's slow. That's taking your time. That's taking your cup of tea and biscuits between shots. You can still kill a 1000 French knights before they've got anywhere near your lines. So the French knights gallop into this attack. Cross this difficult field. Horses stumbling on the recently ploughed field in the thick mud. They are attacked by a swarm of arrows. The accounts of English archers often described the arrows like driving snow. They use atmospheric sort of analogies to give a sense of what it felt like. It says that the English shooting was so thick, it made the advancing French knights bow their heads. And that's a very important point because you don't bow your head when stuff is dropping down out of the sky at you. You bow your head when its hitting you straight in the face. So all of this stuff about archers shooting high up into the air, at high elevation? Rubbish. It never happened. They didn't do it. All of this is straight on shooting. Very nasty business. You've got 6000 guys shooting en masse. If you shoot enough of those arrows, some of them are going to find the weak points, some of them are going to find the unprotected points, and very few, but some, are going to make the armour fail. But again, even if only 1 in 100 shots kills somebody, and even if only 1 in 75 arrows causes significant injury. I mean that's not a very good rate of success, but even if you have a very poor rate of success, you've shot 144,000 arrows in less than 10 minutes? That stacks up. And thats one of the... I think the numbers is one of the things that gave Henry a lot of confidence in this battle.
@tylerdurden3722
4 жыл бұрын
There's a battle during the battle of the roses where the archers on both side open the battle by shooting volleys at each other. Of course, these archers weren't heavily armored. A strong wind blew unfavorably for one side. Each time, their arrows landed short. The other side laughed and mocked, and then returned fire. This went on for a while. What's the best way to achieve maximum distance in such a case? Also, let's say the wind didn't blow, whats the best way to achieve maximum distance against unarmored targets using mass volleys in such a way that you remain out of range?
@FranOfBattle
4 жыл бұрын
You failed to use the English's legendary Pommel tipped Arrowheads. They'll end them rightly!
@AdamCeladin
5 жыл бұрын
Awesome Channel !!!
@Beyondzworld
5 жыл бұрын
Tod is such a nice guy. man, even if i disagreed with you, id feel bad for arguing haha
@sketchtherapy1218
5 жыл бұрын
It seems like each demonstration brings in great questions for new material, great job keep up the good work.
@SlowerIsFaster139
5 жыл бұрын
when shadiversity isnt pissed no one should be.
@revan0890
5 жыл бұрын
But what about dragons?
@tommeakin1732
5 жыл бұрын
The man was bloody ecstatic
@ME-hm7zm
5 жыл бұрын
Do people still take Chad seriously?
@corvanphoenix
5 жыл бұрын
@@ME-hm7zm I can't believe they ever did. But maybe they like long versions of other people's stuff. Each to their own! :)
@FalkonNightsdale
5 жыл бұрын
@@ME-hm7zm Not seriously, but... He used to be funny, despite frequently wrong and "making up facts", while never mentioning any sources. However, over time he lost it, got that feeling of being invincible. I was there, when he assaulted NUSensei for criticising his poor understanding of archery, I was there seeing flood of armchair general's fandom spilling through links under "NUSensei is IDIOT" video, filling comment section with invectives and racial slurs... Luckily, NUSensei has proved to be more mature, stepped back, issuing lenghty explanatory video, apologising for "not being precise". Shad mistakenly understood it as apology for "criticising Allmighty Shad", deleted abovementioned assault gate and boasted in his community page, that it was proven, he was right... ...disgusting...
@Excalibursin
4 жыл бұрын
14:33 Sounds awesome! I know you said your goal wasn't to pierce the armor, but I'd love a video where that was the objective. Either by using different points, different bows, or even different weapons! Seems like it'd be awesome, (if not expensive to destroy a piece of plate).
@jessetaft1
5 жыл бұрын
Love that you answered the questions from the casual historical fighting fans, love all your videos and the work you put into making them accurate
@achemist1975
4 жыл бұрын
Its interesting that some of the medieval artwork you showed, do show arrows piercing armour
@nicks2437
4 жыл бұрын
I've said it before: if plate armour was defeated by bows and crossbows then it would have fallen out of use. There would have been no logic in lugging the extra weight if you'd still have been killed. You'll notice, however, that plate armour didn't start to fall out of use until the advent of infantry firearms, because firearms could defeat it reliably.
@jonathannadeau6218
5 жыл бұрын
I just discovered your channel and I have to say that I’m very impressed. You’re definitely one of the best.
@knightshousegames
5 жыл бұрын
"Why didn't they shoot the 200lb bow?" For the same reason the US doesn't arm it's soldiers with 30-06s anymore, it's hard to shoot and is completely overkill. It really must be pointed out how insane 160lbs is. most people getting started with archery might struggle with 40lbs.
@Olav_Hansen
5 жыл бұрын
I can draw and hold a 40 pound bow for quite a while, my only problem seems to be that my fingers are a tad on the soft side for it.
@Olav_Hansen
5 жыл бұрын
Although I must admit I'm a fairly fit 200lb bloke, so a weight like that shouldn't be a problem for me anyways. (I really want to try my luck with an 80 pound bow sometimes)
@knightshousegames
5 жыл бұрын
@@Olav_Hansen I asked around somewhere a while back about what a good starting weight should be for a complete novice at archery, thinking40 lbs would probably be no big deal, and they were telling me to go lighter. And yeah, you are probably an exception compared to the average youtube commenter. One thing to think about though, if you do get to draw that 80lbs, that that is still half of what Joe is drawing.
@johnplath1072
4 жыл бұрын
I'm 6'4", 225lbs and shoot a 55 lb bow. At bow meetings we shoot 6 dozen before lunch and 6 dozen after lunch and by the end of the day my accuracy begins to suffer. Can't even begin to think how much strength training I'd need and sore I'd be with 160lbs let alone 200lbs.
@Olav_Hansen
4 жыл бұрын
@@johnplath1072first there is a special draw method (using your back and not your arm strength) which will make you draw 1 1/2 - 2 times your normal draw, and second firing 70 arrows is more than likely more than the average amount of arrows that was shot during azincourt. (and third archery was not a hobby, but a job practiced for (assumably) over 1 1/2 years of training by only the most "promising" (accuracy/strength ratio) archers in a country in which archery was already a hobby/usefull skill.
@Sk0lzky
5 жыл бұрын
Joe's shooting style with leaning forward is actually characteristic for all cultures using strong warbows going as far as east asia
@markbecker71
5 жыл бұрын
I wonder if you could recreate the density of fire on the line from the archers..?if the French line was 500 ft. Wide and 3000 archers were shooting 6 shots a min..what would it look like..👍🤠
@bacomancer
5 жыл бұрын
15:00 The understatement of the year. It's a must watch! Thank you for the incredible content, Tod (and friends, of course).
@shubbagin49
5 жыл бұрын
Advance until an effective fire is received, scary words.
@賴志偉-d7h
4 жыл бұрын
"How did the English defeat the French then?" You don't have to answer that question. All you did was clarifying one point: can English longbows penetrate French breast plates?
@dragoscoco2173
5 жыл бұрын
Arrows splitting is a problem? At 120J and 80 gram arrow going to full stop in 10mm (in favor of wood bias), not considering the bounce back, would require a deceleration of 15000 g's. If the shaft is only 60 grams it would have to experience a mean Force of 900 kg (about half a tonne) over those 10mm. Spread over 126 sqmm of shaft that is 7.2 kg/mm2. Most wood is not meant to survive such abuse. The 10mm is actually a 5mm in my opinion but the armor moves also the arrow bends so I have to give some slack for unknowns, yet the numbers are still high. Also the stopping force is not linear, so at some point in the deceleration it might be higher than the computed average.
@dragoscoco2173
5 жыл бұрын
I would bet that at this energy a modern carbon fibre or aluminium arrow with their hollow design would shatter or bend beyond any further use.
@briancannam494
3 жыл бұрын
The weather at Agincourt and the soil composition played a great part in the French defeat. The weather was very wet and this caused the ground to become very sticky . If you walk across a wet clay field it sticks to your feet, if you don't stop and remove it it builds up and saps your strength. Also you have a crowding effect from the narrowing of the terrain. Think of the work recently done to computer model crowd accidents in Stadiums and the like. All of these factors added to the arrow storm causing the French knights to close their visors and try to walk in an orderly fashion over heavy slippery soil and people behind them pushing them on . In those circumstances it is likely that a great many knights fell over and were then walked over and drowned by their own side. They would not be able to stop and pick up a fallen comrade, they would have been trying not to fall over themselves and reach the English line of battle. In hindsight it was a battle the home side should have refused to fight as they had room to give and then chose to fight on a better suited field. Great video on the arms and armour and it looks like you have got it about right.
@blairbuskirk5460
5 жыл бұрын
I was fully expecting a tirade admonishing the plethora of inane comments instead of this quite reasonable discourse on the particular how's and why's of your experiment.
@glbernini0
4 жыл бұрын
I love everyone online that knows more than real professionals that did the experiment. Most of them learned everything they know from Hollywood movies and fantasy books.
@Yourebeautyfull
3 жыл бұрын
They are the "fantasy experts", and they have outnumbered the other experts :D
@benschuster9792
4 жыл бұрын
I'd love to see a test against a face plate, would an arrow go through/break open the eye slits or breaths
@mercury6800
4 жыл бұрын
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the arrows they used went through a face plate
@briankearney5994
5 жыл бұрын
I'm glad there is so much excitement, the video deserves the attention. Hopefully, we can have more of these videos. It's great that you are taking the time to answer these questions.
@Lurklen
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this Tod. Many clarifications to my questions (particularly those regarding blunt force trauma, those fellows with the vests were madmen. I am always impressed with just how much punishment the human body can withstand with just a little bit of help.) and it's interesting to hear that others were curious about the same thing I was. Really interested to see how you guys get along with answering some of the lingering questions in future videos (I think anything horse related is going to be a challenge). Eager to see what comes next.
@ArmouryTerrain
5 жыл бұрын
You have followed up a great video with a good "questions answered" video. The thing that I would really like to see in further tests is to add shoulders to the armour to see if the ricochet pieces of the arrows lodge in the shoulders and armpit? Mounting a helmet for similar reasons would be great- but it all adds to the cost and preparation time.
@warpdriveby
3 жыл бұрын
Another amazing and fascinating video! Thank you Todd. I have a question and a thought regarding evidence for steel vs wrought iron arrow heads. This idea is informed by my 20 years of working mild steel and occasionally being lucky enough to repurpose true wrought iron farm equipment. Mild and especially high carbon steels are as you know the least corrosion resistant, whereas wrought iron (especially when treated with beeswax) gains so much resistance that Ive pulled bits to reuse out of fields after 40-100 years. What is the likelyhood that you are finding only wrought iron heads because a steel head would almost certainly have turned to orange dust long ago? I imagined if someone had taken the position that only iron swords had been used in the medieval world because we only find iron ones. I do want to praise your commitment to a scientific and evidence based approach however. I do understand that to be able to claim integrity and to avoid muddying the issue, you've taken a justifiably cautious position. As someone who has constructed far more period weapons than I have I did want to hear your thoughts on the iron vs. steel ? Thanks and please keep making the best vids!
@charlesforbin6937
5 жыл бұрын
Tod... No matter what you do or how well you cover a subject there is always going to be some asshole that would have done it differently or better so keep doin your best...which seems to this novice to be comprehensive and entertaining....
@ashika1009
5 жыл бұрын
Charles Forbin Not everyone who disagrees with aspects of video is an “asshole.” Your language does not belong in the comments section here.
@goatmeal5241
5 жыл бұрын
With regard to the arrows knocking people back/off their feet: you seemed to mix up kinetic energy and momentum. Momentum is what's conserved in a collision, and that's what will push someone back. The videos you showed were of bullets with very high energy but much lower mass than an arrow, so their momentum is likely considerably smaller. If someone shoved you with their body weight (60kg) at 1 m/s, they'd have only 0.5*60*1^2 = 30 Joules of kinetic energy, but you better believe you'd be pushed back more than that 2000-joule bullet video. (edit) Found some numbers: 9mm bullet (7.5g, 400 m/s): 600 J of energy, 0.3 kg m/s of momentum AK-47 bullet (16.3g, 715 m/s): 4166 J of energy, 11.6 kg m/s of momentum. moderate shove (60kg, 1 m/s): 30 J of energy, 60 kg m/s of momentum arrow (80g, 55 m/s): 121J of energy,, 4.4 kg m/s of momentum So your arrows would have pushed someone back like 15 regular bullets hitting at the same time, but only about 40% as much as an AK-47 bullet. I'm surprised that that guy was able to take the AK-47 bullets that well--I feel like against someone not bracing for it, 11.6 (and maybe 4.4) would be enough to knock them off balance.
@fruitshuit
5 жыл бұрын
As someone who asked about shooting into the side, thank you for the update! I can't wait to see future tests!
@powg3476
5 жыл бұрын
I'd also be interested to see how other pieces of armour would fare. Pauldrons and cuisse for instance.
@karlb6273
5 жыл бұрын
Another solid performance, Tod! This test was excepionally well received by most creators and viewers on this part of KZitem, and for a very good reason. You adress one specific aspect of the subject matter, and that is a very sound strategy. This video is really a defense of the method used, but your humble approach instead transforms it into an in-depth explanation. You’re a great educator, Tod. I very much look forward to your group’s future tackling of other aspects.
@tanglediver
5 жыл бұрын
Hence the phrase, "Odds bodkins."
@billrock6734
5 жыл бұрын
Actually it was myself who posted the comments about the extra velocity imparted by a charging knight making a significant difference to the armour/collision and perhaps this is the reason why the knights at Agincourt were on foot as they knew if they charged on horseback the arrows would skewer them.
@rafaellastracom6411
5 жыл бұрын
The results were clear, firearms, not arrows, were the end of knights in armor.
@pavelKrupski
5 жыл бұрын
Actually, it was economy :) As soon as it became cheaper to produce, arm and teach anyone to use firearm that will take down a knight or almost any heavy armored target -- it became the end of the knights and heavy armor era.
@nutyyyy
5 жыл бұрын
@@pavelKrupski Another myth. Modern rifles spelt the end of breastplates for heavy cavalry as these could punch through pretty much any armour, whereas even mid 19th century firearms could not penetrate a lot of breastplates of the period effectively. This is why you see in fencing treatises knights in half harness fighting with guns.
@pavelKrupski
5 жыл бұрын
@@nutyyyy And yet-- it's not a myth. Heavy armored knight/man-of-arm was very expensive unit both to upkeep and to train. Plus you cant just take any regular Joe. Same as a good longbowman. While crossbows first and then firearms allows almost anyone after some relatively basic training to try take down a knight with different chances on success, of course. Without going into the melee. You don't need a 100% penetration of the armor. You just need 5% chance and 20 conscripts (just for example). And 20 conscripts will still cost much less than a knight.
@janehollander1934
3 жыл бұрын
Most of these questions/"suggestions" & comments just go to show, how hell bent many people are in wishing for "test" that will guarantee an outcome/results, that fits our modern craving for the wow-factor. And that isn't based on any known & (often) proven Historical facts. Many people just want the "outcomes" that support what they assume they "know". I'm so glad the 4 of you stuck to the brief you set yourself. And didn't succumb to the pressures of creating a 21st Century fake KZitem "test" video on a early 15th Century war.
@Wownerd1265
5 жыл бұрын
"Why didn't you do x" "Scope?"
@JrrrNikolaus
3 жыл бұрын
The biggest advantage I feel the Bow (and it had many) had was forcing cavalry to fight on foot, horses would be so vulnerable to those kind of hits.
@heinzerbrew
5 жыл бұрын
I like how almost all these questions were addressed in the original video.
@immikeurnot
4 жыл бұрын
120 joules is less energy than a .22 LR is capable of delivering. Nobody ever accused a .22 of being able to knock someone off their feet, so I'd say the force of being hit is negligible. As far as all that goes, back when France's GIGN were fans of the .357 Magnum, before you were part of the team, you put your body armor on and a teammate would shoot you in the chest with a .357 Magnum at close range. That's over 700 J. Nobody died from the blunt force trauma of a far higher-energy impact in a soft armor panel. For that matter, the man who did more to put ballistic armor on police officers in the US than anybody else would go around and demonstrate his armor by shooting himself in the chest with a .357, and this was soft, flexible (compared to plate - both the kind you're talking about and the kind soldiers use as body armor today) armor made of aramid fiber. He never died from it, never even fell down from it. Oh, you actually brought up the founder/owner of Point Blank. Nice. FWIW, he didn't invent soft ballistic armor. Layered silk was used as far back as the 1920s. His company did bring practical, every-day ballistic armor to police forces.
@zakremmington6297
5 жыл бұрын
I'm really glad to here that there will be more of these tests coming in the future, this is great stuff.
@thenecrophymm6591
5 жыл бұрын
Sheesh - folks really were not paying any attention to the video at all..... you disclaimer-ed almost all of those questions. REALLY looking forward to the following up videos - of which thier must be soo many qued up already - sounds like a long running series to me - excellent! You folks have the best test(s) going - keep it up - FOR SCIENCE!
@jamesk8730
5 жыл бұрын
Nice video. I would still like to see heavier arrows used, such as the "quarter pound" arrow. If the arrows that were used had shafts of poplar or other light wood, maybe an ash shaft would do better. And also, I think the blunt force would be most effective against the head, not the breast, at least for the disorienting effect. That would be interesting to look into.
@MegaAdeny
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, for a longbow to be shooting arrows at 180 FPS seems to be indicative of a fairly light arrow grain per pound wise. You could undoubtedly squeeze out more energy there. But, of course, those arrows would be terrible for distance shooting.
@jamesk8730
5 жыл бұрын
@@MegaAdeny Yeah. If I recall correctly, the arrows were 1100 or 1200 grains or so, which is light for a 160lbs bow. 1600+ grains would be better imo.
@nutyyyy
5 жыл бұрын
@@jamesk8730 As explained in both videos there are based on historical arrows.
@jamesk8730
5 жыл бұрын
@@nutyyyy Yes, but there are also historical arrows that were heavier and I would like to see those tested because I think they would be more effective.
@tisFrancesfault
5 жыл бұрын
@@jamesk8730 medieval arrows were lossed at comparatively short ranges (consistent evidence that they fired flat trajectories), where the speed would be more an advantage than momentum of mass.
@barryslemmings31
4 жыл бұрын
It should be pointed out that Lord Clifford was killed in the Ferrybridge skirmish on the night before Towton (1461) by an arrow while drinking. The chronicle suggests that he had his throat plate open AND that the arrow may have been broken and therefore headless. So... a) contemporary arrows did break b) even broken they were still dangerous. I still like the previous film, well done! Barry (a member of the Lance and Longbow Society)
@jameshallam3221
5 жыл бұрын
just imagine hundreds of arrows hitting grouped troops
@FloatingOnAZephyr
3 жыл бұрын
It occurs to me that whilst the blunt force trauma of an arrow impact wouldn't cause major issues on the torso, it might be a very different matter on the head. I'd love to see another test done against a helmet to see what happens there. So many arrows were shot that day at Agincourt, many of them would have impacted heads.
@KnightlyNerd
5 жыл бұрын
Great content. I also wanted to thank you, I bought one of your bronze handled folding knives for my father’s birthday, which just arrived yesterday. He loves it and we all agree it’s beautiful. Thanks for everything!
@phil20_20
3 жыл бұрын
I thought you guys did a pretty good job. I would suggest trying some leg shots while you're doing side shots. Winston Churchill mentioned that in his accounting of Agincourt in his, "History of the English-speaking Peoples." I think it was "the Birth of Britain." Pt.1
@llamallama1509
5 жыл бұрын
I still would have liked to see how a lighter arrow would perform, since the bow would propel them faster, and velocity is more important than weight when it comes to piercing armour.
@waves_under_stars
5 жыл бұрын
more accurately, what matters is the momentum, not the velocity. momentum is a product of mass and velocity, as you probably know. so, if you increase the velocity but decrease the mass, the momentum doesn't necessarily changes much.
@jamesk8730
5 жыл бұрын
A heavier arrow will actually always have more energy than a light arrow. It's not the same as with guns. The heavier arrow takes longer for the bow to accelerate, giving more time for the bow to impart energy into the arrow. This also results in the shot being quieter and with less handshock, as less energy is left over from the shot. In fact, the arrow they used is fairly light for the bow they used. It was around 1100 or 1200 grains if I recall correctly, and the bow was 160lbs. Usually 10 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight is standard, which would mean an arrow of 1600 grains for this bow. I would actually like to see heavier arrows used. The "quarter pound" arrow is somewhat famously used for armour piercing, and would be around 1700 grains.
@rafaellastracom6411
5 жыл бұрын
Energy = Energy. And there just isn't enough of it to make a difference.
@GregTom2
4 жыл бұрын
Hypothesis: The french heavy infantry was not killed by the english archers' arrows except for the occasional lucky shot to the legs, neck or armpit, but depleted their morale and fighting spirit much faster than the opposing infantry, falling into a disorganized rout. Put yourself in their position. You're trudging through mud, racing for the English's center of heavy infantry, but as you do so, a heavy projectiles rain down on you. You're instinctively closing your eyes for fear that wood shrapnel enters your visor. You're terrified that one missile finds your neck and kills you. Your buddy gets struck in the hip and colapses a few feet away but you know you have to continue pushing. You give a war cry to drown out the horrifying sound of kilograms of arrows snapping against steel every second. Every couple seconds or so you randomly get pushed around by thick wood shafts collapsing into you, and you wonder if it might have injured you. You finally reach the English infantry and start to swing your pole arm into them, only there's just as many of them on the front line as there are of you, and they're ready. You're now basically wrestling to stay on your feet, only they keep shooting at you from the flanks. One coward a few feet away from you takes a couple steps back while covering his head. Two polearms start to harass you now. The guy next to you falls over. The Englishmen push. You can't keep your ground. Before your buddy manages to get up he gets trampled over by the enemy line and gets stabbed repeatedly with a dagger by one guy mounting him. Minutes pass. Your heart is racing. You think you're going deaf with the clamor of cries, steal and wood. You're there. You're there but you're not doing anything. Fuck. What are you here for. You can't remember. You can't -OW. Did this arrow penetrate your armpit or was it just shrapnel. Please just be shrapnel. You keep bringing down your polearm in a repeated motion that's been drilled into your brain by hours of training, but why? The guy next to you starts to back off. You don't want to be alone against the enemy line. You back off. The guy next to you backs off. He falls over with an arrow sticking out of his neck. You're here, diddling your thumbs, just out of range of the infantry, getting pelted. But why. You back off. The guys next to you back off not to get overwhelmed. The enemy infantry pushes against you, so you take one more step back. Two more. Three. The guy next to you start to run backwards. Then another. How long before you're on your own fighting the entire enemy infantry? But why. Did someone call the retreat? They must have. It only makes sense. Only you didn't hear it over the noise. So your backwards evasive maneuvers accelerate. You realize you're letting someone get overwhelmed by your side. It's too late. You run. Everyone starts to rout. The English infantry pursues you. While less than 10% of your forces were dead before the rout, you still lose the battle, the prisoners get captured (and eventually executed as you unfortunately find out), and a ton of people die while disorganizedly running away.
@johnwhittle.22
5 жыл бұрын
I’m so glad you took time to film this and answer a few questions from people, to me it shows an unbiased approach. The legend of the long is something we British are instilled with, and while it must’ve been effective on the battlefield to some degree it would never be the only reason for victory at Agincourt. I’m really enjoying these videos and I’m hoping you get chance to put more together. My understanding for the victory at Agincourt boils down to the different fighting styles, the British relying on archers and men at arms. While the French were after individual combat with someone of equal standing to themselves. But the French also expected to be able to be taken prisoner and ransomed back to their family, however at Agincourt there was a major concern that so many French had surrendered and were taken to the rear of the British lines. This would mean the British could’ve been caught in a pincer like movement if the French prisoners rose up, so king Henry V ordered the slaughter of the French and it was some of the archers that carried out those orders. As I say that’s my understanding. Please keep the videos coming 👍
@V4zz33
5 жыл бұрын
Jesus, these comments were about why you were trying to be historically accurate... really??? Did they watch your awesome presentation and then the footage from the experts? I feel ashamed... Well done guys, and thank you again for the hard work, and I am looking forward to see the experiments that will follow this one!;))))
@rickcheyne
4 жыл бұрын
An arrow that breaks on impact can't be reused against the shooter.
@robc6391
5 жыл бұрын
Great encore to the series you posted Tod. I have a question. I understand that making these videos costs a lot of money (people's time, work, material, scheduling issues etc.) so the question is: Are you considering alternative sources of potential financing such as crowd funding? Because I am sure I am not the only one who would be more than willing to contribute to something like this.
@kelleren4840
5 жыл бұрын
One question I'd love to know more about: In grade school we were taught that the British killed cows in advance of Agincourt, and the archers would poke the bloated corpses with their arrows before shooting. This (supposedly) meant even a scratch would go sceptic so fast, the french knights would go feverish and die in under an hour, and many bogged down in the mud died this way (with just a few, infected scratches). I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but if so, it might make those tiny splinters of wood flying up under the chin etc. much more dangerous.
@deektedrgg
5 жыл бұрын
Sounds like nonsense to me. If the arrow point can't even get through the armour, there's no point to poisoning the head. If they did that, it was to take out soldiers, archers and mercenaries. Not for taking out men-at-arms or knights. The British probably did kill all the cows in the area to deprive the French from food (and to feed themselves). Because that was normal in medieval warfare.
@miskakopperoinen8408
5 жыл бұрын
A couple of hours is nowhere near enough for an infection to spread, let alone reach a lethal stage. A couple of days at a minimum, notwithstanding an already existing disease that is about to reach lethal stage.
@MrGrimsmith
5 жыл бұрын
Nice thought, more linked to siege rather than open warfare. While my knowledge of biology is by no means perfect I'd call that one a myth. Outside of engineered viruses and bacteria it simply doesn't set in that fast. Days or weeks later? Oh aye, that's going to take its toll. On the field? Probably not.
@snafu2350
5 жыл бұрын
If you wish to use this method (which is valid, if incorrectly applied in this case - see Vietnam-era pungee stakes) you need to use the dung from carnivores/omnivores (eg humans) to provide the correct pathogen. Herbivore dung won't work to incapacitate any enemy in any length of time to be useful, & isn't generally lethal (excluding protracted seiges ofc, in which case you'd simply throw the whole rotting carcass over the wall). Even carnivore or human dung isn't fast-acting enough to produce a significant effect: it's likely to require 12-48hrs minimally- or un-treated to be of significance to a warrior I agree with the other comments here: it's far more likely that the English killed the cows simply to feed their own troops &/or deprive the French from food in sieges; for the same purpose they may have stripped/burned nearby crop fields
@callumbiasnow4825
5 жыл бұрын
It would mean having you position filled with dead rotting cows, probably not the most pleasant, sanitary or practical thing for battle, and likely to mean you’re over run with flys, also a negative for you. If this was a real advantage why would they not always do this in battle? Why not dip swords and axes in too? Why not have a fresh cow bladder in your scabbard? Also I’d be surprised if you’d die in under an hour from sepsis, maybe 24 hours. I wasn’t there so can’t say for sure, but this sounds unlikely to me.
@personofnoimportance5590
5 жыл бұрын
I know horses well and it would have been HELL on earth if your horse had fallen and you lie in a slippery muddy ground. You would have been crushed becose there's other horses coming behind you, then they fell becose of you.. it's a whole mess like a domino effect. And horses are big target for arrows and even war horses get wild and stampeded in that kind of enviroment. 14th century war horses weight was around 1,200-1,400 pounds think about that..
@valkoharja
5 жыл бұрын
The amount of joules of kinetic energy is meaningless. Kinetic energy isn't the same thing as momentum (check Wikipedia for the formulas). The maximum amount impact felt for somebody receiving an arrow or a bullet, is the amount of "kick" felt by the shooter (minus losses to air resistance). @Tod's Workshop is absolutely right here, even though he doesn't explain the physics behind it. A longbow arrow (or a rifle bullet) doesn't knock somebody off their feet, any more than the weapon's recoil knocked the shooter off theirs.
@imay3610
5 жыл бұрын
The test was cool, but for every video where the guy stands straight against AK bullets there is a video like this kzitem.info/news/bejne/1nyMmXl6jXZ4Z6w. Make up your own mind is a great thing you said. There are so many things we don't know, but we tend to make some conclusions. Mind you that before Mary Rose was discovered, every historian and reenactor told that maximum draw weight of warbows was no more than 80-90 lbs. There are some issues i find in your tests with the quality of the bow performance and arrows/archer, but I won't voice them here, because it will take too long of a discussion. This is the best test up to date indeed, because previously no other test provided such great information about armor quality and bow performance as in your video. But don't get delusional, it doesn't prove anything. If previously statements from longbow-fans about longbows being able to pierce anything from 300 meters seemed ridiculous, now I see it's armour-fans who take the turn and make knights into invincible beasts. Armor worked as it works now, but people still die from bullets even wearing vests which are designed to protect against those bullets and people (even knights in rich armour) died from wounds or got seriously injured by arrows. There is plenty of historical evidence. The most famous one and most detailed one must be Jean of Arc. Armor gives a better chance of survival, that is it. No more, no less. If you truly believe that arrows killed anything from 300m range - you are delusional, if you believe armor made you like a modern tank against pistol bullets - you are delusional.
@adam-k
5 жыл бұрын
Tod's Workshop, Please do one thing for me. Make several crossbow bolts of different weight. Lets say ranging from 90g to 200g and shoot them from your heavy crossbow to some reasonable target. (brest plate) I have hypothesis and I would like you to confirm it. It is as follows. 1) The damage done by a bolt depends on the speed and the weight of the bolt. 2) There is a limit in the material how quickly a limbs of the bow can possibly move. Stiffer bows have heavier limbs that has larger inertia. That is why bows dont increase in efficiency linearly by increasing draw weight. 3) Heavier limbs can transfer their inertia more efficiently to heavier arrows. That is why a heavy longbow won't shoot faster or further than a lighter one but can shoot heavier arrows. Distance records are made by #100 longbows and not with #200 longbows. And the theory to test A heavy #900 crossbow won't shoot an average crossbow bolt faster or further than a #200 crossbow however it should be able to shoot much heavier bolts with the same speed and distance. Therefore the reason to use a slow #900 crossbow is to shoot very heavy bolts. Please do find the sweet spot of your heavy crossbow and test the damage it can do using that bolt.
@Belnick6666
4 жыл бұрын
Find it weird we see modern people doing these kind of test....we have thousands of thousands of people killed by these weapons, but when we try to make a modern version most of them fail.....it is like they are saying history is fake news :P Are we making feeble replicas? Seen many crossbows bounce on armor and the "knight" ofc had something under there so it was not direct skin to plate, but why would these knights even care about crossbows if they all bounce or penetrate 1 inch at most? Our modern crossbows too weak or history fake news? :P edit:: have nothing against "Tod's Workshop" but I see lots of videos on youtube where proven weapons vs X armor thou out history always fail when done by a "youtuber"
@alorikkoln
2 жыл бұрын
If you look at medieval Art, then you can see that the archers often aimed at the horses. In some pictures, the horses are being shot to pieces. Thats probably why fully armored knights began fighting as infantry during the 14th and 15th centuries.
@phil20_20
2 жыл бұрын
You guys are doing excellent work! The most comprehensive and realistic testing I've seen. Could you please do some tests for accuracy at various ranges for mounted knights with the Long Bow? Churchill wrote that many knights were pinned through their legs and in many other places besides through the most protective armor. I find it hard to believe that lifelong archers would not selectively target an armored opponent, especially at close range.
@nox3335
3 жыл бұрын
Why didn't you use an arrow+5d? That'll even penetrate a chaos knight( well unless he's using a cloak of Azrogobuladue, of course)
@boredgunner
2 жыл бұрын
People tend to forget that English infantry was important at Agincourt too.
@elgostine
5 жыл бұрын
also regarding 'blunt trauma' we shouldnt be surprised that an arrow wont kill you, we see in hmb tournements and wolin fights, people getting hit with socking great axes and polearms all over their breastplates and helmets (extra padded they may be) and they get hit several times and barely flinch similarly, jousters get socked with much higher forces and also do absolutely fine.
@daanwilmer
5 жыл бұрын
Summarizing half the comments: they went with quality of the data points, not quantity. A bow of a draw weight most likely to have been used on Agincourt, shooting arrows that best reflect the evidence we have from that time at a breastplate that could very well be on that battlefield and that we can reproduce accurately. Yes, you can add more data points, but there wasn't enough time and/or money to do so without sacrificing accuracy.
@MedievalMan
4 жыл бұрын
Archery from historical times is often exaggerated in the movies. And so was the battle of Agincourt in popular myth. Most of the evidence about that battle shows it had more to do with the battle field conditions, and the archers use of melee weapons, than the archery itself. We have to discern from historical-legend, and of historical-evidence, which often shows a completely different perspective, than what went down in written history. Which is often times manipulated for various reasons by the winners of the outcome. Agincourt became something of a medieval propaganda for many centuries later by the English. Much like another exaggerated piece of history, which is the Spartans and Sparta in general, after the battle of Thermopylae. We have to be careful about what we hear from history, as its full of inaccuracies by the people who have written them long ago. No doubt Im going to get a bunch of idiots in the comment section defending some sort of historical myth over the latest reliable evidence to the contrary of their favorite battle, culture, time period after having written this comment.
@madcad8918
4 жыл бұрын
Again though, in battles like Crecy or Agincourt, the archers shot at the horses not the riders. They didn't try to pierce the French knights breastplates but took out the horses creating carnage which was easily exploitable by lighter soldiers.
@Erainn00
2 жыл бұрын
Was all of the plate armor new? Was all of the plate armor the best that could be had? Was some of it (or a good portion of it) older hand downs, inferior workmanship, older designs, non complete? Not all knights could afford the best. Was it configured for hand to hand or arrows? Could this have allowed arrows to find gaps or weak points and have more effect on the knight wearing it?
@Chef316
4 жыл бұрын
Seems like people don't really know what they are talking about Chad. Or they simply haven't done as much research as you and your team of artisans/smiths.
@blakewinter1657
5 жыл бұрын
The issue of whether the arrow will knock you over isn't a question of kinetic energy, but of momentum, and the answer is almost certainly that it lacks the momentum to knock you over. Momentum is mass times velocity, while kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared.
Пікірлер: 1,5 М.