"If you want a great bowman, start with his grandfather."
@VeryPatrioticAmerican
Жыл бұрын
"If you want a great rifleman, start on Tuesday."
@oldtimetinfoilhatwearer
Жыл бұрын
And if you want great chicken, come to Los Pollos Hermanos. Los Pollos Hermanos, where something delicious is always cooking!
@matthaeusperry4319
Жыл бұрын
Only two comments under this thread and i love it already
@lerbronk
Жыл бұрын
"you said you want me to be free but all i want is ice cream"
@romantheblack-cat
Жыл бұрын
Is that neptune as your pfp? I wouldnt know as the only reason i know she exists is due to dal sp collabing while i was still playing
@texdillinger6173
Жыл бұрын
English kings actually passed laws that demanded that their citizens owned bows and trained with them and often subsidized archery tournaments to keep people motivated to practice archery.
@oldtimetinfoilhatwearer
Жыл бұрын
Huh. Now that is interesting
@chadboyle4107
Жыл бұрын
That makes quite a fair bit of sense actually And back then its not like they had social media to scroll on, this probably was a fun use of their spare time too
@abhi5504
Жыл бұрын
They had mandatory trainings on Sunday, and these trainings ended up being incredibly useful in the hundred years war where the English could just go to any random village and find tons of skilled bowmen to recruit. The french couldn't do the same, and so they had to use crossbows which were significantly worse due to a number of reasons.
@Drekromancer
Жыл бұрын
That's actually brilliant.
@madtechnocrat9234
Жыл бұрын
@@abhi5504 Crossbows are not inferior to bows. If anything they are supperior. they were even banned by the pope to use against other christians becouse they were op. they are much more expensive however.
@bug5654
Жыл бұрын
General upon losing 6 dudes: Years of academy training, wasted! Assistant: Sir, they were gunmen. General: ...Well, don't forget to bury them.
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
This general studied in Russia.
@Mygg_Jeager
Жыл бұрын
@@MrFelblood **shots fired**
@prestonjones1653
Жыл бұрын
@@MrFelblood Well if it's worked for a thousand years.
@jaypeedesuyo662
11 ай бұрын
@@MrFelblood No. Every country in the world has that mindset. Even today. Has been that way for centuries.
@Vincent_A.
10 ай бұрын
@@jaypeedesuyo662uh huh…
@shortlivedglory3314
Жыл бұрын
It could actually take as much as a decade to replace your best archers. It's why they were often better armored than they generally needed to be.
@jackmrsich3178
Жыл бұрын
I’m stealing this for future conversations in which I have nothing else to say.
@pigasus2479
Жыл бұрын
@@jackmrsich3178 smart move
@dijonjohn1011
Жыл бұрын
Lol huh??? Archers were not that heavily armored, and there was always a threat of getting flanked... Why do people just make shit up?? Lol
@Somespideronline
Жыл бұрын
@@dijonjohn1011 what makes you think that the comment was made up? Serious question btw
@dijonjohn1011
Жыл бұрын
@@Somespideronline Because they are acting like Archers were over armored, which just isn't the case. Archers wore a amount of armor that made sense. They were under the threat of being flanked or having enemy archers volley on them... They also might be required to engage in melee combat, if their frontlines failed. So the amount of armor archers wore, made total sense. It wasn't about overly protecting their skilled archers.
@Nerdnumberone
Жыл бұрын
Using a warbow isn't just about skill. Strength training is also a significant concern and it has to be the right muscles. Archeologists can identify the skeleton of an English longbowman by how their skeleton deformed. We are talking draw weights over 100lbs. Not only do they need to be able to pull that string back, but they need to be able to aim as well and repeat the action multiple times in a battle. A proper archer would practically need to learn from childhood to develop the right muscles.
@senseishu937
Жыл бұрын
Does 100lbs mean they force needed to pull the string back equates to a 100lbs or the force of the impact is a 100lbs?
@TheDukeOfDallas
Жыл бұрын
@@senseishu937 the pulling of the bowstring back takes 100 lbs of force.
@mariuscatalin5982
Жыл бұрын
Yes and no, it takes muscle but you can train anyone who is bellow 30 if you put enough effort into it but training is vital
@superiorrule34
Жыл бұрын
Yep a common joke for the time goes like how do you train an archer you train his father.
@tiredman99
Жыл бұрын
@@senseishu937 yes the amount of force needed to pull the strong back. Also known as draw weight.
@davidb3155
Жыл бұрын
imagine being a member the warrior elite aristocracy of your kingdom. you've trained for 20 years to a master of warfare and combat. then in your last battle you get yeeted out of existence by a 16 year old stable boy who was just taught how to make the firestick go pew.
@jefferybrown6473
Жыл бұрын
"Damn, three days from retirement."
@koupipva
Жыл бұрын
the Battle of Shiroyama is exactly that, its the absolute elite of the elite from the old days VS 1 infantry unite, and they got shredded
@dereenaldoambun9158
Жыл бұрын
When a group of African child soldiers beat the shit out of medieval knights. 🤣🤣🤣
@gavins9846
Жыл бұрын
No kidding. That happens even as we speak. I've heard accounts of USAs tier 1 guys getting hit by potshots taken from a kid with a smooth bore AK. Guns are really something
@gravygraves5112
Жыл бұрын
This is basically what happened at the battle of Cerignola. Elite French cavalry and Swiss mercenary pikemen (the best money could hire of the day) were defeated by a force of Spaniards armed with firearms and pikes. Pike and shot tactics (formations that allowed firearm welding troops to engage enemy infantry and cav while being covered by friendly pike infantry) then took over Europe. At that battle the French lost about 4,000 men and the Spaniards only lost around 500.
@DeamonChocobo
Жыл бұрын
Once again I'm reminded of Oda Nobunaga from Drifters and his obsession with introducing guns to the fantasy world he was dropped into.
@geheimeWeltregierung
Жыл бұрын
Well i dont kwow Drifters , but i Heard about oda Nobunaga. He was an Important Warlord in Japan and guess What , he introduced fireweapons (in great scale) to japanese battlefields.
@james-97209
Жыл бұрын
@@geheimeWeltregierung well yes and no. Nobunaga was actually the guy who managed to use guns effectively in field battles(the Japanese were already using quite effectively in sieges , but their use in field battles were an enigma until he came along)
@geheimeWeltregierung
Жыл бұрын
@@james-97209exactly, i agree thats basically what i wanted to say :)
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
Well, he was usually willing by throwing larger armies of muskets, torches and pointy sticks at elite forces of warrior monks, so his career was a microcosm of this principle. That and the principles that you can't parry a forrest fire or a collapsing building with a katana, and that losing honorably is still losing. Scary man, that guy.
@james-97209
Жыл бұрын
@@MrFelblood well no one was fighting honorable at the time either. This whole idea about samurai loyalty and honor was a myth created centuries after the warring states period of Japanese history. What set Nobunaga apart from his fellow warlords was a) he had a plan for unifying the fractured country and b) when he committed atrocities he made no excuses to the point he had a "what you see is what you get and then some" type of mentality about them . Basically many historians seem to believe that many of his atrocities were exaggerated/embellished by his enemies and nobunaga didn't bother to correct them because those stories made him appear more terrifying
@orion_13
Жыл бұрын
World War 2, a British army officer named Jack Churchill, although most people called him “Mad Jack”. In May 1940 Jack and his unit ambushed a German patrol in France close to L'Épinette. Jack gave the signal to his unit to attack by shooting the enemy staff sergeant with a barbed arrow using a long bow, making him the only British soldier to ever down an enemy using a long bow in World War 2.
@Barrystue
Жыл бұрын
Fucking madlad
@Diyel
Жыл бұрын
He's also the one carrying a longsword into battle, right?
@Barrystue
Жыл бұрын
@@Diyel yep, also became a commando and escaped a few prison camps
@NationalismDjazair
Жыл бұрын
That is cap, he literally said his bow was crushed
@1CE.
Жыл бұрын
K Bro it’s 2022. Stop repeating trivia everyone and their Boomer parents know already
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
"Point and shoot" weapons really changed logistics more than tactics. Any school kid can point an imaginary crossbow in the general direction of a target.
@moisesflores5405
Жыл бұрын
Except guns and crossbows were prestige weapons handled by professionals. People weren't arming peasants with expensive weaponry and shooting guilds were prestigious institutions handling crossbows. Indeed 16th century writers write that guns were the weapons of the professionals while bows were weapons best suited when there weren't enough guns to be around. By the tail end of the 16th century men showing up with longbows to muster were classified as unarmed men.
@elduquecaradura1468
6 ай бұрын
@@moisesflores5405... what? you know, if for "professionals" you mean menthat could coordinate their volley of fire to shoot in a consecutive fire line non stop while the ones who shooted were reloading counts as "professional" I get it, but I doubt a bow that needed a lot more of training was considered under a early gun wich was literally a cannon on a stick and about crossbows in late medieval Japan... I have no idea
@rimanahbvee
2 ай бұрын
@@moisesflores5405 youre wrong lol
@theredspy3579
Жыл бұрын
"I have a bow!-" *"DODGE LEAD THY FILTHY CASUAL-"*
@stanleybochenek1862
Жыл бұрын
i have a time machine and a nuke wait my time machine is the nuke better not overheat the reactor
@akstormtrooper508
Жыл бұрын
I read that in the "I can see the futuuuurrre! We're all going to die!" Voice
@dishantdalvi
Жыл бұрын
Thee*
@bluscout1857
11 ай бұрын
*BANG* “Oh the horror i did miss-“ “Thee very much sucketh at aiming yond thing thee knoweth yond?” *pulls back bow*
@personalemail9329
10 ай бұрын
@@bluscout1857Morden guns can shoot multiple times before archers can reload, don't challenge Guns, ye filthy peasant.
@shinobix4925
Жыл бұрын
I now want a game where you play as a historically accurate but highly skilled soldier who can wield a sword, a bow, and a gun
@bluebutton36
Жыл бұрын
Try Kingdom Come Deliverance. It should be what you are looking for.
@SimonMoreal
Жыл бұрын
Try Mount & Blade then lol.
@dereenaldoambun9158
Жыл бұрын
So basically we play as "Mad Jack" in video game? 😳😳😳
@randallsanchez3161
Жыл бұрын
Those are called mercenaries. Most mercenaries cross trained the most popular weapons of the time based on what they could afford. Sword as a sidearm, bow for the higher paying spots if the army could afford to pay the higher wages, crossbow if they army couldn't afford it, and gun if the mercenary could afford to own one.
@aribantala
Жыл бұрын
Get Mount and Blade: With Fire and Sword. It has the very thing you're looking for... You can be a Swedish Musketeer, a Cossack Serdjyuk, Russian Streltsy, Polish Hayduk, or an Ottoman Janissary under Crimea... Heck you could just lead a troop of those guys and be a Mercenary Captain
@samuelmellars7855
Жыл бұрын
Another advantage of crossbows and guns over bows is that you can keep them ready to fire for an indefinite length of time. So you can aim and wait, then when someone steps into range, there is no delay to firing
@bingobongo1615
Жыл бұрын
That is actually the reason why crossbows and guns can do formation fire wel and bows usually don’t
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
Keeping an arrow nocked but not drawn just doesn't have the quick fire potential of a finger on a trigger, but that's more of an urban warfare concept than field battles and sieges. Tactical moments might save the life of a single soldier, but to save a country you need to think about logistical and strategic scale stuff like, "we can train twice as many ranged units and have them ready before they enemy reinforcements arrive."
@blindoutlaw
4 ай бұрын
Which is why crossbows and guns were better during sieges. Because you could wait and only expose a small portion of your body to the enemy. A bowman needs to stand up and stand almost completely out of cover to get a shot off
@psychromaniac3525
Жыл бұрын
The Battle of Shiroyama was a great example of this. Although, when WW1 rolled around, it was found that well-trained units still had their advantages over conscripts.
@tadferd4340
Жыл бұрын
The point isn't that crossbow and gun equipped soldiers weren't trained, but that to get an equivalent effectiveness crossbows and guns required several orders of magnitude of training less than bows.
@abhi5504
Жыл бұрын
Well to be fair the Samurais in shiroyama were outnumbered 60 to 1
@fen3311
Жыл бұрын
@@tadferd4340 Crossbows didn't need any more training than a gun, probably less in fact.
@tadferd4340
Жыл бұрын
@@fen3311 I didn't say they did. I said both crossbows and guns require less training than bows.
@fen3311
Жыл бұрын
@@tadferd4340 You right I musta done a hella misread
@sotired7562
Жыл бұрын
Now I'd like the explanation of the historic significance of "the kitty at the end" I'm sure this guy could find it.
@MoistNuggeteer
Жыл бұрын
I’ve used a bow with a 50lbs draw weight and it’s no joke to pull that to the rear and keep it steady. Medieval longbows would often have weights well over 100lbs. It would take years to train large numbers of people to use a bow like that consistently and accurately.
@lollogamer05
Жыл бұрын
Yes, but an AK is better than a bow
@MoistNuggeteer
Жыл бұрын
@@lollogamer05 Not if you’re out of bullets. In all other aspects, yes.
@lollogamer05
Жыл бұрын
@@MoistNuggeteer haha
@lollogamer05
Жыл бұрын
@@MoistNuggeteer but it is more possible that you finish the arrow instead of the bullet ☺️
@MoistNuggeteer
Жыл бұрын
@@lollogamer05 I actually own both, and I must say if I could only choose one it would be the AK.
@antic7711
Жыл бұрын
There was also the fact that as time went on guns just became better than bows. People often besmirch the musket’s accuracy, but in a decent few cases, bows were even worse-for example, an arrow’s accuracy could be heavily affected by the wind, a gun’s could not. And the rate at which guns improved outpaced protection, so guns could more easily penetrate armour compared to bows.
@thespanishinquisition4078
Жыл бұрын
Battle of Cerignola is a great example of this. Most french officers got killed by spanish handcannoneers, which surprised not just the french but even the spanish, so much they reacted by mounting the first of what would become the spanish tradition of mourning for enemy deaths. Because indeed guns, even those early ones, had way more precission and armor penetration than bows and even crossbows. A trained longbowman had at best the same accuracy as a shotgunner (that's what they called a shotgun then, not what we call so now), and about the same penetration too. The non-wall-mounted arquebus had more pen but less accuracy. Early muskets (the long kind with the sticks) had both more pen and accuracy, locks made them more accurate, rifling even more so. A Musketeer from the 18th century was objectively better than a longbowman in every sense but frequency of shots, and that's only short term, because longbowmen got tired much faster too.
@XMysticHerox
Жыл бұрын
Muskets were superior in basically every way. This argument only really applies to *really* early guns. And btw armour that could protect from muskets existed and was actually quite common. It was standard equipment for cuirassier. It just couldn't take musket shots at close range.
@b.h.abbott-motley2427
Жыл бұрын
Qi Jiguang & Humphrey Barwick both wrote that matchlock firearms were more accurate than warbows, while Sir John Smythe indicated otherwise. Based on modern tests, I suspect matchlocks were significantly more accurate than warbows in skilled hands & in prime condition. If loaded poorly or too hastily, or with heating & fouling, maybe not. In any case, matchlocks offered much higher velocity & power than warbows as well as greater ability to shoot from cover.
@djdayton9238
Жыл бұрын
I’ve been listening to his podcast, but what I really want to know is… how annoyed is his coworkers? My mom gets annoyed when I talk about history… imagine THIS GUY with the history of the universe 😂
@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation
Жыл бұрын
Tell your mom to cope and seethe 😎
@djdayton9238
Жыл бұрын
@@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation I will 😂
@TripleBarrel06
Жыл бұрын
People who get annoyed at history anecdotes are usually pretty dull themselves. Sorry.
@jillvalentinefan77
Жыл бұрын
@@TripleBarrel06 Agreed. People who don't want too learn history are the same ones who will repeat it if they get too live long enough.
@djdayton9238
Жыл бұрын
@@jillvalentinefan77 That’s what IM sayin
@roberthansen5727
Жыл бұрын
The arquebus consistently outperformed the bow in battle - it wasn't just more practical, it was a superior weapon.
@aetius7139
10 ай бұрын
Unless.... your fighting a mongol. Guns were little use fighting a mobile hit and run tactics of a cavalry based army.....
@taistelusammakko5088
10 ай бұрын
@@aetius7139mongols would have been crushed with guns. But they didnt fight europeans in 16th century now did they
@Shawn-vp2dq
8 ай бұрын
@@aetius7139hence the bayonet was invented...
@unlimitedpower1385
Жыл бұрын
and the intimidation also really helps. it doesn't help morale when you hear all of the gun shots, the smoke and just holes appear in people
@sigismundafvolsung5526
8 ай бұрын
sure, but a hail of arrows is terrifying as well
@dinonuggiesguy4847
8 ай бұрын
Not only that a single volley you can see like alot of your comrades the same line as you just fall down dead at the same time
@justarandomcommenter570
8 ай бұрын
@@sigismundafvolsung5526True enough that a volley of arrows is scary too, but the key difference being you can at least *SEE* the hail of arrows coming at you :P With arrows you can at least see whose firing them and the poor bastards they are falling upon. You also at least have a sense of security from arrows with a shield. Guns take away all of that. You cant really see the projectiles, you dont know where its going to hit. All you see is a puff of smoke and next thing you know your friend next to you has a hole through his shield and his chest
@koreancowboy42
Ай бұрын
Arrows arent made to kill, sometimes arrows will injure most of the time than how it is seen in hollywood.
@dlmcnamara
Ай бұрын
@@sigismundafvolsung5526a bow twang doesn’t make someone involuntarily twitch the way a gun’s report does.
@kadenkc3923
Жыл бұрын
Just thought you should know that watching your channel is my favourite thing to do on my lunch breaks at work
@historyofeverythingpodcast
Жыл бұрын
Thank you my friend
@quakeknight9680
Жыл бұрын
Your lunch breaks surely must be pretty short, i must say
@kadenkc3923
Жыл бұрын
@@quakeknight9680 I binge his videos for half an hour😁👍
@quakeknight9680
Жыл бұрын
@@kadenkc3923 Oh well, that seems reasonable
@nehukybis
Жыл бұрын
This is true when you're talking about *very* early firearms- say, the middle of the 15th century. Unfortunately, too many people take this argument to its ridiculous extreme and claim bows were better than flintlock muskets. Horsemen continued to use bows long after the infantry traded them in for guns, since mounted men have trouble reloading muzzleloaders. I mean, consider the Japanese who were great archers and had excellent bows. And Japanese infantry gave up their bows for *matchlock* muskets as soon as they had the chance.
@b.h.abbott-motley2427
Жыл бұрын
Yet the Manchus didn't give up their (probably better) bows & continued using them with success at least into the 19th century (& longer with less success). It's true was mostly for cavalry, but some Qing infantry also used bows & some even used both firearms & bows based on artwork.
@justachannel8600
4 ай бұрын
Native Americans, too.
@koreancowboy42
3 ай бұрын
Uhmmm not all Japanese armies replaced their bows. They still kept units with bows and matchlocks hence while the gunners are reloading the archers can still rain down hell
@IslamistSocialist371
28 күн бұрын
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 and lost to a small British army in two wars 😅
@allanmonroe692
Жыл бұрын
One of the reasons Sparta fell is essentially the same. Because Spartan training was so lengthy, if they took mass casualties, they couldn't easily replenish their ranks. There are other reasons, but this was a major factor.
@pianoman-1359
Жыл бұрын
Spartans weren’t significantly more effective at warfare then their enemies and didn’t participate in a a lot of battles directly, it was more to do with the fact that very small amount of people were granted Spartan citizenship.
@allanmonroe692
Жыл бұрын
@@pianoman-1359 That was also a significant factor. There's also the fact that they didn't really change their tactics. The small population of fighting men combined with the lengthy training time, were the two main factors in their decline & fall.
@samiamrg7
Жыл бұрын
+pianomaN I’ve heard they were highly effective because frequent, military drilling wasn’t common among other Greek city-states. Once that DID become more common, though, the Spartans lost most of their edge. Then their xenophobia and small population combined with contual losses in frequent wars lead to their decline.
@kingsarues1586
Жыл бұрын
It was more the fact they had too many slaves. Their entire economy relied on slavery and if they were forced to fight a war for too long they risked the slaves revolting due to the army being away.
@kongming66
Жыл бұрын
@@samiamrg7ecause most other Greek cities relied on militia for infantry. The hoplite formation ostensibly came out of defensive needs of the polis and light infantry was probably recruited from poorer populations or mercenaries. The only ones who could actually afford to train or gain firsthand war experience were oligarchic elite, but the hoplite formation was only as offensively effective as the discipline of its full force so they would lose cohesion during movement. What set Sparta apart was their hoplite phalanx marched as one, never drifting as others did and it's implied wouldn't retreat unless ordered. It's important to note that their school system wasn't initially a unique institution in Greece, but at some point they converted the education of the leisure class into a training regimen that conditioned and desensitized male youth of the citizen class to follow orders and kill at a moment's notice without question. It's also important to note that the period of Spartan hegemony was relatively short and the list available of Spartiates (hoplites) got smaller every year. There are a lot of theories why but there was clearly enough of a manpower shortage that they relied on non-citizens and even freed Helots to fill gaps in the phalanx, though not enough that they opened the agoge to them so their formation discipline was never what it once was. Given who beat them, and who beat THEM, and who beat the successors of that guy, there's probably a lesson in there about needing to scale resources and training while applying innovation to maintain military advantage, which those guys actually managed for a few good centuries.
@simontaylor2143
Жыл бұрын
I feel the training aspect only really applies to the Gun/longbow comparison. Crossbows were just as easy to get the hang of as a gun. A point I had heard on KZitem (will update if I remember who from) was that musketballs had much higher lethality than arrows. Arrows would rarely cause instant or near-instant death/incapacitation in a way bullets could I also would have thought the prevelance or armour on medieval battlefields would have made the gun more viable
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
A zhuge crossbow is, as far as the soldier using it is concerned, just a wooden SMG powered by levers instead of gunpowder and springs. Metal ammo, standardized replacement parts, machined barrels and chemical energy add more accuracy, reliability and power, but the real **revolution** in battlefield technology was point and shoot weapons. 1. Point business end at enemy. 2. Operate lever. 3. Go to 1
@joshhasty08
Жыл бұрын
Same thing with crossbows and why the French used them so much back in the day. Just like you said regarding early firearms, it was much easier and far faster, and more cost effective to train someone to be proficient with a crossbow then it did to train someone up to use a bow
@Nerobyrne
Жыл бұрын
I find it hilarious that there are some people who genuinely think that bows were better for armies than the muskets of the Napoleonic era. If that was the case, nobody would have used guns. We can see this, for instance, with the air rifle. It was superior in every statistic to the musket, but it wasn't used because the overhead was so high that it made no logistical sense. Not that nobody ever used them. They were popular with private hunters, for instance. But they weren't used on the battlefield.
@b.h.abbott-motley2427
Жыл бұрын
Are you familiar with tests of Girandoni air rifles? They most certainly were not superior in every statistic to the flintlock musket. The kinetic energy & velocity were quite low, even if originals performed better than replicas. If air rifles had become more common, soldiers could easily have adopted lightweight armor to protect against them. Air rifles were used on the battlefield, but not for very long & in limited numbers.
@Drekromancer
2 ай бұрын
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 That would have made such an interesting meta! It'd necessitate the use of both light and heavy armor for protecting from air guns vs. powder guns.
@goddamnit2573
Жыл бұрын
It should be mentioned that while guns were more expensive than bows bullets were a hell of a lot cheaper than arrows
@nicklapallo9090
Жыл бұрын
As my friend once said, "the longbow didn't fail us. We failed the longbow."
@johnbu9098
Жыл бұрын
No we human always seek better tools
@TheKnoxvicious
Жыл бұрын
Gun > Longbow
@swissarmyknight4306
Жыл бұрын
Your friend should look into the historical availability of wood staves suitable for making longbows. You have to kill a ~20 year old yew tree to make 2-3 bowstaves, and bowstaves wear out. England would have had to transition away from bows even if guns didn't get better, because all that (necessary) archery practice killed most of the suitable trees in Europe.
@Asterix958
Жыл бұрын
@@swissarmyknight4306 You are probably wrong, opening new farmlands, wood houses, ships (most important compenent) and another wooden tools depleted forests in Europa not Longbows. Korean and Eurasian nomads made more bows than European counterparts (English, Vikings, Franks etc.) but their forest ratio is very high. Making ships deplete forest mostly.
@TheIfifi
Жыл бұрын
Don't forget logistics. To create an arrow you need a fletcher, carpenter and blacksmith. For a lead ball you need lead and a form. Anyone can do it. Gunpowder is more difficult to make but it's easy to transport (Obviously, it's risky by it's nature but not logistically difficult, only safely.)
@koreancowboy42
3 ай бұрын
Also don't forget the creation of the gun barrel and overall design of the firearm. Needs expert craftsmen.
@TheIfifi
3 ай бұрын
@@koreancowboy42 I was only talking about ammunition there, not crafting of the weapons, the weapons crafting were usually done out of the war where it wasn't time consuming. They didn't fight Total Wars of industrial scale then. HOWEVER. A bowyer does require more time than a gun barrel, and their resoruces are more expensive. Iron vs high quality yew. As for design, I mean sure it's more advanced technologically, but once it's been desigend you're done there. Don't need to keep designing every gun.
@Drekromancer
2 ай бұрын
@@TheIfifi That's true, but before standardization and replaceable parts, gunsmiths had to customize every gun. Replaceability really changed the game in terms of cheap, easy manufacturing and maintenance of firearms.
@zoinks8297
Жыл бұрын
Muskets are superior to bows and the idea that it’s simply a matter of bows being difficult to use is preposterous. With that logic, elite units that go through really long training like Royal Guards would use bows, but they chose guns… Because they were superior.
@kagtkalem7115
Жыл бұрын
This tbh
@raychapman1134
8 ай бұрын
Muskets weren't the first gun though.
@joseignaciohileradorna5122
3 ай бұрын
We're talkung about Handgonnes not muskets.
@ekdujhekeliyeentertainment497
4 ай бұрын
Penetration Power. They put an end to the knight-in-shiny-armour era.
@DctrBread
17 күн бұрын
people keep saying this crap, but the accuracy of early handguns competed with the accuracy of bows until say 100-200 meters. It may take longer to reload but that doesn't mean an archer can just pelt fools with arrows all day long. The penetrating power was devastating, whereas only the most powerful archers with the heaviest bows stood a chance of penetrating the armor contemporary with early guns.
@bogimperatortadeuszrydzyk1033
Жыл бұрын
I’ve read somewhere that additional reason as to why the first lockless guns stuck around was that the huge amount of smoke and the noise created during discharge had a tremendous psychological effect on the enemy.
@jacobcothran9961
Жыл бұрын
Now I am curious how long it took for gunpowder to be produced in large enough quantities for guns to be viable for the battlefield
@kovona
Жыл бұрын
Don't know about the early period, but by the mid-1700s the French were producing about 700 tons of it a year.
@FTFSupremacyROBLOX
Ай бұрын
Crossbow was actually a lot easier to learn than a conventional bow, because it was essentially an arrow gun.
@ryneagheilim9782
Ай бұрын
"Guns are better than bows." Comanche: Hold my Feathers
@fainterdot
Жыл бұрын
There’s also the fact that the amount of arrows or bolts a soldier can carry was not even close to how much ammunition a soldier using a gun would be able to carry
@HalalSaulGoodman
3 ай бұрын
like, you can carry around 240 bullets and still have space for other equipments, but with bow, you can only bring some arrows.
@koreancowboy42
Ай бұрын
Also the fact making bullets is easier than it is to make arrows. Arrows you need feathers from chickens, the wood need to be good and of quality, the arrow head iron work needs to be good.
@edgelordfacckoff8608
Жыл бұрын
A while ago, inspired by your plate armor video. I have done some research into the usefulness of maces or Warhammers against plate armor. Some say such weapons will demolish plate while some say it’s as effective as swords. What’s your thought on this?
@spumeman
Жыл бұрын
i'd like to know the answer too, i guess it would be somewhere in between, i believe that the best area to hit would be the helmet. though the mace and warhammer are a horseman's sidearm, so i guess that makes sense
@riasapta4109
5 ай бұрын
Crossbow is the only bow that can compete with guns after the invention of matchlock, while longbow almost imediately died out, mostly because crossbow were far more easy to train with than longbow.
@manjitahzan9577
3 ай бұрын
Logistics wins war. Napoleon has spoken the truth.
@joshuacase5639
Жыл бұрын
Imagine going back in time and training a knight to wield and M240B and be accurate with it.
@TheRealTimeline
Жыл бұрын
Why did crossbows not take off like early guns did? Like guns, they didn't require as much skill to use and were effect against armor.
@SungJaeUng3
Жыл бұрын
Crossbows were time consuming to make. Not every smith knew how to make them correctly. Also, despite how they're often portrayed, they had about the same ability to punch through plate armor that longbows did, which wasn't much. If a bolt or arrow struck hit a weak point like a joint them it could do damage to the target, or if it hit the very edge of the plate it could deform the metal without losing too much force, meaning there would be more left over for penetrating a significant amount, but plate was very difficult for arrows or bolts to defeat. At close range, a bullet was sure to punch through. It was guaranteed to do serious damage if it hit. Being easy to use and able to reliably kill a fully armored knight made the difference. Although, on the point of crossbows being used, usually armies would have as many crossbows as they could get, but again; complicated to make correctly.
@Rynewulf
Жыл бұрын
Well depending on the place, they did. The earliest known crossbows are from bronze age China, and theoretically simple wooden crossbows may be much much older. As for why it only spread so far: money. It is more expensive, time consuming and resource intense to build a large strong crossbow that noticeably outperforms a simpler cheaper bow. Add to that the strength and training needed to use a proper siege crossbow that rivals a longbow, well a bunch of the benefits are gone. Now if you were ancient China you absolutely could spend the money to throw crossbows at a few thousand soldiers that dont have an archery background to get your ranged troops, but for most ancient and early medieval states it was cheaper, simpler and faster to just use pre existing sling, javelin and bow traditions and infrastructure
@swissarmyknight4306
Жыл бұрын
They did take off. Longbows were the thing in England, most everyone else in Western Europe used crossbows for military purposes. Crossbows were very popular. Its just that they were surpassed by firearms in the late medieval period.
@koreancowboy42
3 ай бұрын
@@Rynewulf Qin Dynasty era is famed for their crossbows
@Rynewulf
3 ай бұрын
@@koreancowboy42 yep and the earliest found are Shang centuries earlier than the Qin in the bronze age. The lack of clarity is if/when crossbows overtook bows/became common mass weapons
@Erick_Bloodaxe
2 күн бұрын
For a while those mixed units still had to contain pikes (and swords) because the guns were now better than bows, but still didn't have a good way to resist cavalry charges or infantry that were willing to take heavy casualties to come to grips.
@michamcv.1846
Жыл бұрын
Absolute, a crossbow IS such a complicated concept , even If IT has the Same fire Power of a gun...
@MorallyDubiousFrog
Жыл бұрын
Gun has far greater firepower than a crossbow.
@calamityhex3729
Жыл бұрын
I imagine it was the same effect with the first cross bows we're made too.
@HistoricalWeapons
Жыл бұрын
Agreed although emergency trained archers can still be somewhat effective. A 50lb bow with broadheads is stil useful (against no armor) shot from beginners en masse
@aburoach9268
Жыл бұрын
that chinese han dynasty crossbow, with the right poundage & bolt it should be able to reach 400-500 m & that would outrange the effective range of a musktet (200 m) twice + without armor the bolts would still be lethal at that range / since that particular crossbow was spanned by hand, back and feet, it would also have a higher rate of shot
@lordulberthellblaze6509
Жыл бұрын
That was the big reason why guns replaced bows. As soon as archers were up against armored infantry or cavalry. Even well trained archers and crossbowmen could do very little against them. Meanwhile even some half decent arquebuiser firing in volley would tear through armor and shields
@aburoach9268
Жыл бұрын
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 That's not really true, Because the archers & especially the crossbowmen could still wound & incapacitate them / the only parts of the armor that could be considered arrow proof (not bolt proof, because crossbows need more testing) would be the chest armor and the helmet in case of lamellar and plate But Limbs protection due to thinner armor was still vulnerable to arrows, It would be especially a problem if the Arrows were to be poisoned which was rare but did happen historically On top of that, there is the wounding and killing of Horses, since horse protection was rare and still provided limited protection
@aburoach9268
Жыл бұрын
@@lordulberthellblaze6509 the big reason why they replaced them was less training in case of comparison to the Bow and in case of comparison to the crossbow, cheaper ammunition, the terrifying effect of firearm sounds & ofcourse more power, but that wasn't the main reason
@lordulberthellblaze6509
Жыл бұрын
@@aburoach9268 Limbs were also harder to hit especially if the person had shields. Also getting hit in the limbs with an arrow or crossbow wasn't guaranteed to kill or incapacitate a person like a bullet could. Both arrows and bullets had been coated in poison. And unlike poison arrows, the lethality of poisoned bullets led to the Strasbourg agreement of 1675 that banned their use. In the aftermath of the battle of crecy many more knights and nobles were captured than killed. Meanwhile arquebuises were pretty much guaranteed to punch through breast plates and helmets at optimal range. This was important since archers became increasingly ineffective as armor became increasingly more effective and common on the battlefield. By the 16th century and the important Battle of Cerignola (1503) most combatants were wearing armor and the French Cavalry and Swiss pikemen found themselves repeating the battle of Crecy and Agincourt only this time at the hands of 1000 Spanish Arquebuisiers at not the 5000 to 6000 English Longbowen at Crecy or Agincourt. The point was you didn't need as many arquebuisers compared to archers to do as much damage to an enemy army.
@HandleMyBallsYouTube
Жыл бұрын
It would also be worth mentioning that any arquebus sufficiently well made will have more power and a quicker and easier reload than a heavy windlass crossbow. European crossbows are notoriously inefficient, with massive draw weights combined with a really short power stroke, which in the case of the more powerful crossbows that might have *some* chance against armour, would have to be reloaded with a windlass. Even then their armour penetrating capabilities aren't anywhere near a properly made arquebus. Now they did manage to make armour that could stop anything up to a musket, but that'd be ridiculously expensive, meanwhile a relatively cheap mild steel cuirass will be more than enough to stop a crossbow bolt fired from almost any crossbow, or at the very least it will take a lot of energy out of the bolt before it gets to your body.
@Shawn-vp2dq
8 ай бұрын
Expensive and un-maneuvreable, I'm guessing. Can't run away from artillery, can't flank easily, the opposing side can just run up to you and stab you with their bayonets. And meanwhile you can just build up a fortification or trenches that acts as shields more effectively than armor...
@Loli4lyf
9 ай бұрын
if guns fell out of favor during medieval times i can imagine modern wars were fought with electric motor powered automatic crossbow
@Lorgar64
Жыл бұрын
Skill wins battles, logistics wins wars.
@jfs5873
2 күн бұрын
Skill wins skirmishes. Logistics win both battles and wars
@chicagotypewriter2094
Жыл бұрын
*Archer dies* YEARS OF ACADEMY TRAINING WASTED
@JasperTedVidalTale
Жыл бұрын
I completely agree they should have used crossbows instead of guns if they want to go the easy route
@MrShenanigans28
11 ай бұрын
Muskets could pierce suits of armor every time. Arrows COULD pierce armor given multiple factors were met, but it was far less reliable and a lot would break on impact. Adding a bayonet to the musket cemented its place as superior to bows and swords etc.
@skyworm8006
26 күн бұрын
Neither could pierce their contemporary plate armours. Even when armour stopped being widely used, the plate that existed could not pierced, because it was made not to be. You're making up stuff.
@thejackinati2759
13 күн бұрын
@@skyworm8006 Humfrey Barwick has a few words to say about that. "But to the musket againe: The musketes are weapons of great force, and at this day, bothe with leaders and followers, much feared: for fewe or no Armours, will or can defend the force thereof, being néerehand, which is as well a terror to the best armed, as to the meanest: it will kill the armed of proofe at ten skore yardes, the common armours at twenty score, and the vnarmed at thirty skore, being well vsed in bullet and tried powder." -Humfrey Bawick, Fifth Discourse In the Graz Tests, one of the 'Spanish Muskets' that was tested penetrated through 4mm of mild steel at 100 metres.
@Keiranful
Жыл бұрын
Todd's Workshop just did Arrows vs. Armor 2. One part of that series pointed out that we don't know what a war bow really is, i.e. what draw strength a bow had to have in a military setting. You have to keep in mind, that in a medieval army, an archer brought his own bow, because each bow is different and you can't simply pick a new bow and expect to shoot well with it.
@MrFelblood
Жыл бұрын
It would be more correct to say that the term "war bow" is undefined. There is a multi dimensional continuum of possible meanings, and little contextual signposted as to which values are likely to correlate to a specific time or place in history.
@koreancowboy42
3 ай бұрын
War bows for most European armies is at 70-75 pounds. For the English archers it's at 100+ pounds on a bow. And yes we do know the standard of draw weight for bows and military standardization. English archers were among the best archers and trained all their life from child hood to adulthood. Which means they have higher standard for archers. Compared to most of European archers. And yes archers can bring their own warbows however, the archers would need the right type of arrow to be used so as to not break on impact of the arrow being released from the bow.
@dakotarussell3282
Жыл бұрын
I understand bows being difficult to train for but why are crossbows so difficult to train for?
@natotomato4625
Жыл бұрын
Shooting in a arch vs shooting straight. Plus, crossbows are heavy and expensive.
@Isaac-ho8gh
Жыл бұрын
@@natotomato4625 that trajectory isn't much of a training issue, bows take long with training because they're much harder to aim when preparing to fire.
@unskilledpyromancer7825
Жыл бұрын
Crossbows aren't really harder to train with, they just have many of the same problems as early guns. Difficult to manufacture, slow to reload, etc. In training requirements early guns and crossbows weren't that different. There's a video on this same channel about crossbows being banned because after their invention a single soldier with a day of training could kill an armoured knight with years of experience and nobles (typically well armoured) didn't like that. Bowmen at least took a long time to train and if they fought on the wrong side could be dealt with by removing two fingers. That wasn't the case with crossbows and the cost of metal limbed crossbows was the only thing that kept them out of the hands of peasants.
@kagtkalem7115
Жыл бұрын
They are not difficult to train
@b.h.abbott-motley2427
Жыл бұрын
Most types of crossbows used across history required strength just like warbows. It was mainly in 15th-century Europe that this changed, with the windlass & cranequin, & even then the goat's-foot lever remained popular.
@thrifikionor7603
Жыл бұрын
At least for europe, other than britain which still relied on bows for longer than mainland europe, it was not really a contest between gun vs bow but gun vs crossbow and here its much easier to see why guns took over so fast once the early arquebus was a thing.
@idan654321
Жыл бұрын
God made Man, Sam Colt made 'em equal, and John Browning made 'em civilized
@allgomesareevil6121
Жыл бұрын
And they go BOOM smoke and fire and lead.
@ToxicTemplar
Жыл бұрын
Any peasant can be trained within days or weeks! Americans: 😮
@swissarmyknight4306
Жыл бұрын
Why would Americans be surprised by that? Have you heard of the US Army? They train "peasants" to shoot on a continuous basis.
@ToxicTemplar
Жыл бұрын
@@swissarmyknight4306 That was my point, he just called Americans peasants! :D
@Buttsmcgee069
11 ай бұрын
Yet the people in charge fear an armed peasantry, funny no?
@conangaming2156
Жыл бұрын
Ok, I can’t believe no one has mentioned this yet. Guns are also better for another reason, hand to hand combat. Guns are better than bows for when the enemy gets close. They carry more weight than a bow, they’re generally tougher than a bow, they’re generally more solid than a bow, ect.
@anosmia6279
3 ай бұрын
There's also the intimidation factor. Getting shot at is much scarier than getting bowed at
@thebobbington
Жыл бұрын
Bows are easy to make, require little to no moving parts, easy to use and can prove to be deadlier than a gun (at that time) if you got used to it.
@johnbu9098
Жыл бұрын
Takes years to train a good bowman then just one lead to the chest he’s dead. Just take a flintlock, point and shoot, easy.
@thebobbington
Жыл бұрын
@@johnbu9098 You realize that flintlock muskets are known to be extremly inaccurate, the bullet is almost non-lethal if you bear the right armor, needs precious time to reload and you'll need more time to know how to effectively use a musket than a bow.
@thebobbington
Жыл бұрын
Also, muskets are for right-handed people only while a bow is binary, a bow had more penetrating power than a flintlock and doesnt make an ear-piercing sound when fired (perfect when stealth is a great advantage).
@knightferdinand9987
Жыл бұрын
@@thebobbington If muskets were so bad then why did they use them.
@Buttsmcgee069
11 ай бұрын
@@thebobbingtonYou are astoundingly incorrect, Flintlocks are not nearly as inaccurate as you’ve been lead to believe, nor are they as weak as you believe. They outclass bows in almost every scenario other than long-range shooting.
@Boop…boop…boop
6 ай бұрын
Fun fact swearing comes from bows when you stick up two fingers, it comes from British archers. Longbow were so skilled they could have 3 to 5 arrows in flight at one time, the French said they have catch a charger to cut off its fingers, so the two fingers stick up is to say I still have my fingers to the French
@manofthepeople2165
4 ай бұрын
People don't realize that the most expensive part of an army is the training.
@-haclong2366
Жыл бұрын
This is also why you still see pirates and Civil War era U.S. American soldiers with swords, but by the turn of the 20th century they were fully ceremonial.
@pianofry1138
Жыл бұрын
They were still largely ceremonial. The American Civil War was between napoleonic and modern warfare. There are very few applications where a bayonet wouldn't be a more practical choice.
@swissarmyknight4306
Жыл бұрын
Swords were ceremonial by the 1870's with the advent of metallic cartridges. That's when we had repeating rifles and revolvers that were quick to reload.
@dannydersman8932
Жыл бұрын
It was also easier to outfit gunmen than archers. Arrows cost a lot of money and arrows were usually destroyed after use. Compared to some cheap scrap metal (hopefully lead) being melted into a ball. Until saltpetre became cheaper, the only thing that was holding guns back was the powder
@gustavoaraujopenha8463
Жыл бұрын
Arrows also were insconsistent in quality as they were handmade.
@x3woots
Жыл бұрын
I read the title as "boys were better than guns" and went on a *wild* trip
@JimedBro
Жыл бұрын
My boy over here is high 💀
@LeFrancht27
2 ай бұрын
"Bows are better than Guns!" Gravity : *I dont think so.*
@oseandepartmentofnarcotics
3 ай бұрын
Another thing people forget is that the same thing happened to swords and knights with the pike. With guns still being shit at the time of the early modern age, formations of pikemen replaced knights and most forms of infantry due to their easiness to train with
@castleanthrax1833
Жыл бұрын
Many people don't realise, that if you were an Archer and got captured, they would cut off your first two fingers, and sometimes just release you, because you couldn't do much damage as Archer. That's where the two finger insult insult "✌️" came from, as in "hey I can still fire an arrow". (When the fingers are raised, the back of your hand would be facing the enemy. I couldn't find a better emoji).
@whatusernameis5295
Жыл бұрын
I thought that was a v for victory sign
@castleanthrax1833
Жыл бұрын
@@whatusernameis5295 The emoji I showed is, but if you turn your hand so that the back of your hand is facing away from you, it's not. It originally started out as a "taunt", like "haha I've still got my fingers". Now it just means "f#ck you", but back when you were an archer, it meant something completely different.
@Barrystue
Жыл бұрын
That emoji but the way it is being POV is basically a British alternative middle finger
@taistelusammakko5088
10 ай бұрын
Stop lumping together all of history. The finger cut thing was something that maybe happened in some parts of europe some time. It didnt always happen, its stupid to say it did
@crazymothman6124
Ай бұрын
Crossbow are like the medieval version of an ak
@great_hermetika
Жыл бұрын
I had this exact same question asked of me 2 weeks ago as I own, and have basic skills in archery, and in black powder firearms (Dutch matchlock, 2x flintlocks, and one percussion cap 3 band 1843 enfield.) I told him if I had a lifetime of training I would choose the bow of a gun however learnt much faster as you said in the 3 type of black powder guns in a matter of a week on each!!!
@thicclegendfeep4050
3 ай бұрын
English longbowmen were such fucking beasts, it's unreal.
@Xfire209
3 ай бұрын
They are vastly overhyped by anglo-centric popculture
@Quincy_Morris
3 ай бұрын
People who say early guns were worse than bows don’t understand bows. Bows were a weapon that almost always wounded. Early guns almost always killed.
@Just-Kyle
Жыл бұрын
WW2 German Soldiers might get terrified when they faced against English man with a knight armor and a bow lol
@swissarmyknight4306
Жыл бұрын
Steel armor is hilariously ineffective against 8mm Mauser.
@derianarce2686
2 ай бұрын
Same thing happened with slings, better than early bows but have the craziest skill gap
@dackelchendackelchen5476
Жыл бұрын
That's why an ancient bard sang: "guns dont kill people... uh uh bows kill people...with bolts"
@SCP096......
7 ай бұрын
"as the founding fathers intended"
@matthewblairrains6032
Жыл бұрын
The thing I would say is often times with the whole bow vs gun is the bow tests are conducted in ideal weather and in cases of military application i.e. massed fire bows would rarely be aimed in any case. In terms effectiveness whilst battles such as Agincourt and Crecy are often used the day was won by English men at arms rather than the bowmen as arrows rarely pierced armour it was the French knights getting bogged down in the muddy conditions that lost them the day
@LucidLivingYT
Жыл бұрын
Funnily enough, guns becoming more widespread and armor becoming less common also leads to bows becoming deadlier again
@zookrobe3749
Жыл бұрын
Its insane how skilled you had to be to be a bowman back then you had to be strong with good aiming skills and you need to be able to keep pulling that 100lb pull back weight for the length of an entire war
@Garbid
Жыл бұрын
Muskets where able to penetrate armour. It took 1 month to train from peasant to musketeers in compare with years of training archer. But key reason was enlarged army. You can't find 100k archers in Britain but you can train 400k musketeers in one year.
@1nfamyX
7 ай бұрын
Which is one of many reasons why everyone should have one. Having a sword or bow for defense doesnt mean shit when youre a 55 year old woman, but having a firearm does.
@kevinwells9751
Жыл бұрын
This is exactly why bows and crossbows coexisted for so long. Bows were hard to use but could shoot much more rapidly whereas crossbows were slow but were easy to learn (plus they eventually packed a bigger punch as they got stronger and stronger over time)
@DavidStruveDesigns
8 ай бұрын
It's a kinda nuts thing to think about - the invention of the gun literally brought down the individual value of your own soldiers life, meaning you could simply throw away more human lives in order to win.
@Myactualyoutubechannel
Жыл бұрын
The Walking Dead fans: yes. Correct.
@paperclipcereal5896
Жыл бұрын
It depends on which guns and which bows. The first question that comes is: Why not crossbows? The second is: Which guns? There are firsthand accounts from English veterans such as Humphrey Barwick explaining why the gun is superior to the longbow, despite the fact that the longbow at the time of writing was still mandatory to train with (mostly for moral reasons). Not to mention the Japanese, whose samurai houses were the houses of Bow and Arrow, not Sword, very quickly took up guns because of their superior penetration power.
@thisdude9363
Жыл бұрын
"Early guns bad." Until you put them in an armored wagon and add a few dudes with pointy sticks for good measure.
@bythebnro7498
10 ай бұрын
At close range the arquebus (matchlock) rifle was way more devastating in terms of damage
@Jesseeee27
Жыл бұрын
Fun Fact: the german word for crossbow is "armboob"
@dankdaze42069
Жыл бұрын
Crossbows and bows for cover fire to prevent a push and let the gunman reload take out long range seems like a smart idea actually
@jaymie855
Ай бұрын
You forgot to mention about the sound that early gun make after being shot. Modern guns are loud, but at least not a lot of people turned deaf after firing hundreds of thousands of bullet. Unlike early guns, that ruptured the eardrum of every people that firing it right after the first shot.
@khannell3040
Күн бұрын
Once the matchlock hit the battlefield the bow was basically outdated
@Julian-em2yp
Жыл бұрын
The bow an important part of the armies of Asia for hundreds of years after gunpowder weapons were invented. Outside of Europe and Japan the mounted knight wasn't important enough to the battlefield to require guns in large quantites
@realmofrandom3696
Жыл бұрын
ive noticed a trend with weapons, the more complicated the weapon design is, the easier and faster it is for an untrained person to pick up and be deadly. in the inverse, the simpler a weapon design is, the harder it is to use effectively and takes much longer to learn to use.
@kubaGR8
Жыл бұрын
Even when archery was still widely practiced the question of whether bows or matchlock muskets were more accurate in a direct comparison seems to have been debatable at best. Writing about his early years as in the English army in the mid 1500s, Humfrey Barwick claimed that his commander held trials of arms 2-3 times a week involving longbows, crossbows, and firearms which wound up leaving little doubt that firearms were the most accurate of the three. He also concluded that after just a few months of training with his arquebus he could hit any target near or far as well as "the best archers in England." When the matchlock musket arrived in China and Korea, local sources wrote that on the practice field they would strike the target "five times better than the bow and arrow."
@TitusCastiglione1503
Жыл бұрын
I’m slightly skeptical of this analysis. While the part about training is true, there are several factors that are not being mentioned: 1. Logistics- an arquebusier can carry more powder and shot for the weight than a bowman can carry arrows, which are far longer and bulkier than any bullet. 2. Cost- bows are actually quite difficult and time consuming to make, requiring a highly trained bow maker to ensure the long process is done correctly. A matchlock arquebus (let alone a medieval handgun) is easy to make by relatively low trained metalworkers. The most difficult bit would be the trigger mechanism, which was similar to the already common crossbow. 3. Stopping power- Guns are more powerful than any bow. Period. The difference is quite stark; firearms are orders of magnitude more powerful than any bow. Most armor of any type at close ranges was useless against firearms; bows, not so much.
@adamcichon6957
Жыл бұрын
If i'm thinking correct, the musket was easly picked up after the battle, and handed down to the new musketeer, while the bow would be lost with the dead bowman. And after the day of training, new shooter can load and fire the volley with others, somewhat effectively, but nobody could do that with the bow.
@chrisrapp7733
Жыл бұрын
I heard they trained people 10 years to use the english long bow , I also heard it had a 120 lbs pull weight
@Nictator42
6 ай бұрын
Indeed, something a lot of people don't realize is that by having a mass produceable and standardized weapon, you get something invaluable, a standing army. By being able to afford to train and maintain a large standing army you can do away with feudalism and consolidate power into absolutist monarchies which can subsequently now afford even bigger standing armies and no longer rely on levies. It wasn't until we could mass produce rifled weapons that guns truly became better than bows
@JCTheSniper15
Жыл бұрын
There's also the fact that as they got better a musket could punch straight through plate. Which is also why armor started going away until we finally developed armor that could match the rifles.
@ThichDocTruyenTranh
23 күн бұрын
i miss the bow update, but sadly the powercreep is real
Пікірлер: 1,5 М.