Are the archers we have today anywhere capable of matching English longbowmen?
>>30475991
Even better.
For some reason poorly fed, third tier warriors that were given bow duty can outmatch 2016 steroid monsters with the best nutrition since the dawn of man.
This is of course according to the English and their Katana-esque fanboyism of the english long bow.
>180 pound bows, being completely useless beside a parade or spectacle, were not used in warfare. Ever. Stop. Glorious English Yew, go home filthy fish mongers.
>>30476186
>English bows were not used in warfare
wut
>>30476245
I assume he means the 180lb monsters.
If I recall, 100lb bows were the call of the day and weren't accuracy weapons. You had 60 archers aim for a distance and fire. That's why every sunday, every man had to train by shooting at a patch of ground and the closest to the centre won a prize, normally a share of the donations that day at the church.
>>30476186
Welsh
>>30475991
Can't really say since we don't have combat archers these days.
Also /k/ is probably one the worst places to ask an "educated" opinion on it.
>>30476186
>I'm just pretending to be retarded
>>30475992
Once again, first reply nails it.
>>30476245
Wow not what i said.
>>30476308
Great counter
>>30476186
>>30476256
>weren't accuracy weapons
I'm pretty sure archer's skill was the limiting factor well before the bow's alleged inaccuracy.
Of course your average sunday shooter wouldn't be sharpshooter by any means, but I'm pretty certain the massed volleys were rather meant to bombard farther away formations rather than to compensate on poor individual skill.
Take away their compound bows (and baby sitters) and give them a proper longbow.
They wouldn't fire their arrows close to half the distance a medieval English archer could get them
>>30476414
I'm sure any medieval longbowman would gladly take modern compound bow over theirs if given a choice. Also
>fire
>>30476440
If they built one with over double the poundage that shot 3/8" thick arrows with 500gr heads and sent it back in time, yes.
>>30476186
Pretty much. When have you seen powerlifters skeletons literally deform from the amount of muscle put on their frame since early childhood?
>>30475991
We have some living history reenactors who can shoot 120+ lb bows
Look up reconstructions of the Mary Rose bows and arrows. They're physically impressive to say the least.
>>30475991
Yes, but only because the modern archer would be using a compound bow. It was the literal law in England and Wales for a long time that all men had to practice daily with a longbow - and the skeletons of archers we found in the Mary Rose are literally deformed from the amount of muscle that was required to shoot those things.
>>30476562
I'm sure their deformed skeletons had nothing to do with general poor nutrition.
>>30476593
No, they have bone spurs so as to carry extra muscle - but only on one side.
>>30475991
>in terms of arm strength
longbowmen
>in terms of accuracy
today
>>30475991
But longbow isn't even that hard to draw. Composite bows usually have shorter, harder strings and you need to bend a shorter bow more than a longbow.
So yes, you can match it and be better than that since even when their prime they weren't widely known as the best. They were just very symbolic in a few battles where they decided the outcome. But that ignores horse archery which decided outcomes of even more battles just not ones that are western.
>>30476629
>Accuracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnBvfVJu8-U
Sights are nice and all but trained bowman can hit a target quite far away with traditional bow without any luck being involved.
Also I think in terms of sheer range and firepower longbowmen would win in quite clearly.
>>30476186
>everyone during the middle ages are smelly disease ridden, malnourished sticks
Anon longbowmen have been training and using heavy bows since the age of 7. Their skeleton is already deformed by the time of military service. Also they were really, really good at a scrap.
https://youtu.be/BEG-ly9tQGk
According to some texts, there were many skilled archers on this level supposedly. I take it with a grain of salt, but it makes sense that people who spent their life studying varying forms of combat would have become proficient
>>30476677
>Also I think in terms of sheer range and firepower longbowmen would win in quite clearly.
modern bows outperform old longbows with ridiculous amount
>>30477325
Oh Christ, this guy. Please don't take anything Lars Andersen says seriously - he's a trick shooter, nothing more.
>>30477332
i would have given him the legolas role in the ring series tho he is clearly better at it than the other guy with cgi help
>>30477332
Oh for sure, and firing a 30lb bow as compared to a heavier war bow is a big difference. But you can't deny he is good, and that some of the history is accurate
>>30477343
He's using a tiny-ass trickshooting bow and probably can't act for shit.
>>30477383
He's a damn good trickshooter, but his 'research' is at best selective and at worst intentionally misleading. Nobody used fucking quivers indeed.
>>30477404
>He's using a tiny-ass trickshooting bow and probably can't act for shit.
i think that's the same for the other bloom bloke
What even is this thread?
are men with bows today as good as men with bows a few hundred years ago?
yes, you fucking morons. they didnt have magical powers, we are the same race
>>30475991
Probably better
especially with their modern equipment
>>30477325
this fucking tool again.
have some Lajos Kassai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOpOqgotJZc
>>30477502
Bullshit! I heard people back in the olden days used to slay dragons with a spear, and ride winged horses.
>>30476186
>third tier warriors
English archers were very highly respected and known to be very effective battlefield tools. They were often hired and paid very well as mercenaries, and a lot of countries tried to copy their archery culture.
>>30476186
>2016 steroid monsters with the best nutrition since the dawn of man.
Well yeah of course we can be stronger and shit because we have better nutrition and understanding of the human body.
>>30475991
>180 pound bows, being completely useless beside a parade or spectacle, were not used in warfare
Citation needed. 100 to 150 is the everage draw weight, so 180 isn't unfathomable.
Anyway, yes current people can match English longbowmen. You have to remember that longbowmen spent their chilldhood shooting bows, and used progressively heavier draw weight bows until they reached military age. Their primary goal was to send a really heavy arrow downrange with as much speed as possible. Modern archery is an art of accuracy and precision. We don't shoot arrows at men wearing armor, we shoot them at targets and animals, and you don't need a 100lb bow to kill a deer. So people use lower draw weights because it's more comfortable to practice with.
Anyway, the real limiting factor with archery and arrow power isn't the man, but the bow itself. There's only so much energy you can transfer to an arrow with a piece of wood. You can make the draw weight heavier and heavier, but after around 100 lbs you start running into diminishing returns of arrow energy transfer.
>>30476256
>If I recall, 100lb bows were the call of the day and weren't accuracy weapons. You had 60 archers aim for a distance and fire.
That part of warfare archery is kinda overplayed. You have to remember that if you're fighting guys in full plate armor with padding and mail in the gaps, you want your arrows to have as much power as possible to maximize penetration into gaps and visor gaps. And even though plate will stop arrows, you might be able to compromise it with a lucky hit, or even sneak through a thin part. They were used to shoot straight and point blank into enemy formations, or into the flanks of enemy formations that are busy fighting your own infantry.
>>30478034
This is the dumbest post on 4chan right now.
>>30478046
But it's true. Read a bit on how the longbowmen were used against the french in the 100 years war. Raining arrows down is a Hollywood trope, so people think it's the only way archers were used in warfare.
>>30478082
>>30478034
Both Crecy and Agincourt happened before the true age of the white harness. When English archers faced the Lombard cavalry in Milanese plate harnesses at the battle of Patay they were routed.
Archers as the high middle ages crept onward became more and more a harassing force.
During their hayday they could punch through padding and maille and most of their utility was killing horses out from under knights and forcing your enemy to wear full armor with visors down on foot lest they take an arrow to the fucking face like henryV
Light infantry through would be right fucked, but heavy infantry and heavy cavalry rapidly became arrow and crossbow proof barring extenuating circumstances
>>30478082
They did not aim for the gaps in the armor . What books are you reading that say that?
>>30478190
Capwell's ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ
Well they probably didn't aim for the gaps, but they certainly shoot in order for some arrows to go in the gaps.
>>30476668
>But longbow isn't even that hard to draw.
This, the reason you hear "AWW STLONG RONGBOWMAN SKERETON DEFORMED OVER A MIRRION TIMES" is because they were stout, underweight medieval soldiers who ate mostly bread throughout their lives and only developed muscle on one part of their body because their intake was too small to support growth on other sections of their body. The reason that anyone who goes to the gym works their entire body is to specifically keep that from happening. If you measured even someone in modern day who goes to the gym regularly (not enthusiastically, just regularly), their muscle density would be higher and the quality of muscle would be far greater. Even among the muscle groups that longbowmen deformed their skeletons for. All because they kept a proper muscle balance and weren't tremendous weaklings in every part of their body except this one specific part.
I'm sure if any of you went to the gym, you would have got the talk about why it's important to keep a muscle balance instead of just working a single muscle in your body.
>>30476186
Actually at the time of the 100 Years War the English and other people of the British Isle were regarded as having a good diet and being very well fed compared to people of similar social standing on the continent.
I just wanted to point that out since "malnourished peasants" is almost as bad as "they only live to 30!!!11".
>>30478272
>tremendous weaklings
>stout, underweight
>ate mostly bread
Do you know how I know you're retarded?
>>30478272
>He fell for the public school "everyone was in mud daub huts and rags from 300ad until 1600" meme"
How does it feel to be so woefully uneducated?
You need to read "life in a medieval city". By Joseph goes. French burghers and English yeoman ate better than you did m8 with that hot pocket diet.
>>30478323
>>30478373
>huurdurr ure just stupid, mighty briton warrior strong as steel ate like horse :^)
Working one side of your body only drastically reduces the muscle and bone density on other parts of your body. Again, proving neither of you understand much about the gym or why skeleton deformities are signs of extremely poor training.
The STRONG WARRIOR GRORIOUS STEEL memes need to stop. Your Katana is not better than a modern crowbar. Your longbowmen are not better than even a modern bodybuilder on a properly balanced diet. And your longbow is pathetically underpowered compared to a compound bow.
Deal with it.
>French burghers and English yeoman ate better than you did m8 with that hot pocket diet.
nice projecting.
<----That over there is just shy of 100lbs, I dread to think what a 180lb monster would be like.
>>30478473
Are you actually stupid? We've actually cited a source as to the diet of an Englishman of the period, whereas you think they ate mostly bread. You think a longbow is less powerful than a modern compound. And you think a crowbar is better than ANY sword.
Are you trying to b8? If so, I suppose you've succeeded.
>>30478272
How can one be both stout and underweight?
>>30478809
This guy's fucking braindead, don't even bother.
>>30478548
not much different. bow strength grows linear with bow width and squared with bow thickness.
>>30478473
A Katana is comparable to a cutless in weight and length. So yes, it is much more deadly than a crowbar.
A bodybuilder would have trouble pulling a bow since he is untrained in doing so. It takes more than raw muscle to efficiently draw a bow. You also have to master the technique and train the neural paths. Archery is a skill like biking - not a strength feature.
A modern compound bow of 100 lbs will draw much differently than an ELB of 100 lbs do to the design. You can hold hit it in full draw nearly without effort; while an ELB requires constant muscle contraction. The CB also has a much higher arrow velocity since it is recurved and uses modern fibre technology.
This is however a moot point, it's like comparing a musquet with an AR15.
If you visit the Tower of London, you can encounter the "Beefeaters". So not all men at arms were living on grass back then.
>>30478272
The bows found on the Mary Rose were of strengths 100 lbs and above. You can't pull these without some serious muscle. So it is undisputable that the English archers must have been strong.
Archery is a full body thing. You can't develop only one side of your body and shoot a strong bow. It takes especially a strong back and legs.
It is incorrect to just assume they had only a buff right shoulder.
I have been shooting bows since I was six, I'm now fifty two. I have shot everything from twig bows to compounds just about every type of target archery and I'm an avid bow hunter.
I participated in several studies into archery over the years as a subject matter expert, one on Indian bows, one on Mygar and two on Tudor archery.
The Tudor study was boring for me, the only new fact to come from the studies was a list of archery equipment compiled from tax records and wills.
This list was detailed, who had how many bows, how many arrows, armour and tackle.
The bows where called sporting bows, hunting or war bows. The descriptions where good enough for me to make similar bows.
Sporting bow, 72" longs d a girth of 4 1/2". This turned out to be comparable to modern made traditional bows with a draw of 66# at 32" and shooting a 400gn arrow 180 fps.
Hunting bow, a little thicker at 5 1/4 " girth shooting a heavier arrow at the same speed.
War bow. 81" nock to nock. 6 7/8" girth and a draw of 110#. Arrows 760gn. Chrono at 202 fps
These three bows where listed as possessions of the same man, a town reeve, in 1322.
As for the original question. I can only repeat what Henry V said.
"To get the best archers, start training there grandfathers at seven years old"
Rather than a bunch of retards on a Cambodian Puppet forum talking about longbows and arrows and how they work, here's the curator of one of the largest arms and armor collections in the world talking about longbows and arrows and how they work. You know, actual sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewwhjUYEPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqo4syIqD8
>>30480582
Somewhere I have a copy of a journal article examinign the bows of the Mary Rose.
They were typically in the 130-150# range. Keep in mind this is after a few hundred years submersion and they were also made during the decline of the English archery tradition.
I remember one anon posted photos of bows that launched stones instead of arrows. Not crossbows, but actual vertical bows that went twangy-twang-twang.
Anybody have them or a link?
Horse archers would have torn the English to shreds
>>30480863
Stop the horse archer b8, you tried once in this thread already.
Does anybody here even understand how a modern compound bow works? It's the same exact thing as a normal bow, except once you draw it far enough the pulleys make it easy to hold it by reducing the weight needed.
Archers of today don't practice as much as the people of those times did because it's not a part of their life's blood. Back then they had to do it to wage war and survive, today it's a hobby. It's like asking if the stone tool makers of today are as good as those of prehistory. They had to do it to live, so they got in way more practice. However, with modern information technology we now understand how they work much better and could potentially train a regiment of archers, but why the hell would we want to?
>>30480863
What good are horseback archers when all their fucking horses, and quite a few of their mates, are lying on the ground doing porcupine impressions?
>>30480933
>today it's a hobby.
Nigga today it's an olympic sport. Olympic archers still use recurve bows.
>However, with modern information technology we now understand how they work much better and could potentially train a regiment of archers, but why the hell would we want to?
You could make the argument that bows are suited for stealthy operations, but the archer would have to be very good for the quietness of a bow to be worth trading maximum distance for.
>>30478046
>>30478182
Please see:
>>30480780
>>30481803
>Implying either of those are wrong
>Implying you aren't booty blasted over being called out for your hot shit categorically wrong opinions
Arrows can't go through a white harness faggot. Or a jack over maille. During the final years of the hundred years war the Lombard cavalry in full white harness a nu cheeki breeki'd the shit out of English archers because a full white harness+barded horse was functionally impervious to arrows even at point blank range.
>>30481926
I said it could go through weak areas like the sides, and through gaps, at point blank (actual point blank, not video game shotgun range), IF IT WAS A LUCKY SHOT.
I know armor makes arrows useless. I never said archers were single handedly killing tons of knights.
The only thing I said was that arrows were shot at relatively close range while the enemy infantry was occupied with your own infanty in order to maximize the effect of your arrows. Tobias Capwell seems to think so as well, so don't take my word for it. Take his.
>>30482032
>The middle ages is one period and armor stayed the same through all of it.
A bodkin will not go through a properly constructed padded jack or any form of plate defense. At 15-25 yards archers and crossbowmen would be individual firing at people's faces trying to 1 hit infantrymen like henryV when he took a crossbow bolt to the nasal cavity
The combat effectiveness of archers was waning during the 15th century. Still effective, but not against any form of plate defense or heavy infantry. Once all continental yew was exhausted in the mid 1500s it was entirely abolished on favor of firearms in England.
>>30482226
Bodkins were for bursting mail links. Broadheads were more effective against jacks because they would cut through the fabric. The English used a compromise design between a bodkin and a broadhead. And they were specifically supposed to be made of hardened steel, meaning they had to hold up to impacting steel armor.
I never said anything about armor not changing,
Yes plate armor largely defeats arrows if you pit them directly against each other. But when you talk about something like the English vs French during that period, it wasn't just Archers vs Knights. The Archers had hand weapons and knew how to use them, and the English had plenty of men at arms. The French had lots of knights, but even in the later periods, the vast majority of their armies were men wearing varying degrees of armor. Not everyone was fully encased in plate. And even if they were, no armor is impenetrable, and if you send enough arrows down range, some will hit a gap and might do some damage.
>>30482417
A. Broadheads will not cut through jacks.t hey are literally 2-3 fingers thick compressed and made of layered fabric
A2. Bodkins being able to pop links on maille is why maille I'm the high middle ages was worn under a jack
B. There is no evidence of hardened bodkins or even steel bodkins
C. For the 10th time, arrows will not go through plate armor. Full stop. No test has ever shown that this is possible. Period sources do not act like arrows will go through armor
D. Most battlefield deaths at Agincourt (not the executions) were from fresh English knights with poleaxes killing frogs who just slogged through 300 yards of calf deep mud in full harness with their visors down due to harrowing arrow fire. A shitload of the arrows were expending repelling the first French cavalry charge at the onset of the battle. The English had well over 100,000 arrows on hand and went through them in minutes. The battle lasted over an hour and had 3 waves of frogs.
The quintecential Archer battle was won by excellent use of terrain and combined arms, not arrows being able to go through transitional armor.
Within a few decades the unsupported archer was entirely at the mercy at heavy cavalry, as is seen at patay.
>But if I ignore history and every surviving source...
Continentally besides English mercenaries, crossbows and hand gonnes became ubiquitous in the second half of the 15th century onward.
Stop doubling down on the myth instead of admitting ignorance and celebrating the truth m8
>>30482558
>A. Broadheads will not cut through jacks.t hey are literally 2-3 fingers thick compressed and made of layered fabric
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucmqglNgYoM
Cutting works better against fabrics. Hence why you can stab through kevlar with a sharp knife, but it can stop handgun bullets.
>B. There is no evidence of hardened bodkins or even steel bodkins
Yes there is. Did you even watch the videos with Tobias Capwell where he specifically mentions that the English were mad because they were being sent unhardened arrow heads after they specifically requested them to be hardened.
>C. For the 10th time, arrows will not go through plate armor. Full stop. No test has ever shown that this is possible. Period sources do not act like arrows will go through armor
I never claimed they could. I said they could go into the gaps in the armor and maybe hurt someone if it also makes it through the padding and mail. Or through visors. You might get deformation of the plate if it's a lucky hit straight on, or to the sides where it's thinner.
If you can point out where I said it would go through a breastplate, that would be great. But I didn't.
>D. Most battlefield deaths at Agincourt (not the executions) were from fresh English knights with poleaxes
I agree with you. Please point out where I said otherwise if you think I don't agree with you.
>The quintecential Archer battle was won by excellent use of terrain and combined arms
Hence why I keep saying that they were used mostly while the enemy infantry were busy fighting your friendly infantry.
>>30475991
English Longbow was the best thing of its time, not all time.
Don't get me wrong, I have a hard on for Yew Longbows, but they don't match up to what we have today.
>>30483084
almost all arrows rely on cutting and piercing therefore your kevlar example is irrelevant.
>>30478789
Not the guy you're replying to, but pound for pound practically any compound bow will be more powerful than a yew self bow. It's not just compounds - a modern recurve or reflex-deflex longbow will be more "powerful" than a yew self bow of the same draw weight. Self longbows aren't an especially fast or efficient design.
"Power" is just a function of arrow speed (draw weight, draw-force curve, efficiency, etc) and arrow weight/construction. If the arrow is fast, you get more cast (it'll fly further) and if your arrow is both heavy and fast, it'll generate more momentum and penetrate better.
Modern arrows are another story yet again. Carbon arrows can be made infinitely more consistent and straight than wood and won't warp or bend. They can be made lighter or heavier than wood. They can be made with tiny diameters that keep drag down on penetration and minimise drift in a crosswind. Arrows have never been better.
A 100# safari compound shooting a 1000 grain small diameter shaft at over 200fps is going to have more cast and greater penetration than a 100# yew longbow throwing a 1000 grain fat wooden arrow at 180fps on a good day.
>>30483084
>9 layers of loose linen over a foam block shot with a modern broadleaf out of a 60lb bow is more accurate than literally every test of a properly constructed jack versus arrows
>Yes there is
We've found plenty of bodkin points, pretty much all are iron and most tested are unhardened. Because they were arrowheads and relatively disposable.
>Shot through the visor
Period oculars of sallets and great bacinets were less than a centimeter wide so good luck with that ye olde anny Oakley
>Shoot through gaps
Into riveted maile voiders, over an arming garment of compressed linen. Archers and pretty much all missile troops but hand gonnes were innefective against full armor. Now the average infantryman was some variation of a helmet, breastplate or maille+jack or standalone jack, with a polearm, sidearm, and target/buckler or hand pavise before the rise of pikeblocks. Easier for an archer to shoot a billman in the face at 15 yards when he's wearing a chapeau de fer versus a sallet, but his jack is completely arrow (and mostly slash and passably thrust) proof.
Bows became increasing less effective as the high middle ages progressed. English mercenaries were used all around europe, but the aglocentric circle jerking about longbows isn't a worthwhile conversation and I've got 4 self bows leaning against my bedroom wall.
You're arguing that 5.56 can kill any soldier because it can go through the soft armor backing of an IOTV, even if the soldier is sitting in an LAV.
>>30483368
This
There's no point in doing it, but a center shelf 150lb fiberglass laminate recurve would be a far superior weapon to a yew longbow of the same poundage. Even just the lack of hand shock would make it leaps and bounds superior from a usability perspective. Mechanically it would be far more efficient at transferring energy to the arrow.
>>30483500
Well, even then early guns weren't necessarily effective, which was why the term "bullet proof" came about, for the dent intentionally left so the smith had evidence he'd tested it against a gun.
LONG YEW BOW....GREAT FOR LONG AS FUCK RANGE.....NOT SO GREAT IF YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY HIT YOUR TARGET.
>>30484246
When firing hundreds of arrows at a time you don't need a it to be super accurate.
>>30476186
>steroid monsters
kek
>>30477502
>are men with bows today as good as men with bows a few hundred years ago?
If you raise them in similar conditions, then why not.
>>30480863
You call that a horse? kek
>>30485766
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br4JMT7D4nw
>>30476186
>For some reason poorly fed, third tier warriors
yeah diets werent actually all that bad for most of history certainly not in the middle ages sure they werent eating steak everyday, but they werent starving except in times of famine, the archers were actually pretty heavily muscled even by modern standards.
nor were they third tier, they were pretty well paid and were generally well paid and at least semi professional.
however sure modern archers would win they have compound bows allowing them to match the same draw weights for less effort expended, as medieval archers were area weapons not accuracy weapons, simply being able to match them for power and range is enough, and technical advances allows them to make up for the difference in training
>>30488040
It's still a tinyass horse. Also that movie is not so good.
>>30491098
>Also that movie is not so good.
>>30476593
He's right, but it was only in the shoulder and elbows of the bow arm
![1301554751590[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UDOGw7a.jpg "1301554751590[1].jpg")
>>30475991
>he shoots his arrows on the left side of the bow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
>>30475991
>is there anyone today who has spent since their early teens learning to use this one weapon and no other for literal decades?
Eh, probably, but not that many.
>>30493025
Fuck you for not reading the thread and fuck your shitty discredited trickshooter as well.
>>30493025
dude in the video is a giant faggot. and you are more of a faggot for believing it.
>>30493025
>You don't know what the Archer's Paradox is
