Why do retards keep pushing the longbow meme?

The important things to know here are 1. what was in that backpack, 2. what's the draw weight on that bow, and 3. what type of arrow they were using. The answer to any or all of these can provide further light on a thread that was intended to be bait in the first place, but is possibly salvageable.

>a stick with a string.
Yeah, about that

For mail/textile armor probably. Maybe even to help force its way into gaps and through some shitty plate.

Odd's Botkins!

Wheres your evidence

No it wasn't, you stupid fuck
youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg

Right here you spandau hating prick.

150lb

Attached: ntuvwciOXp1ttl3uwo1_640.jpg (561x566, 70K)

IDK, man. They were pretty OP in AoE2.

But they can, the historical record is very clear on this

It was a steel plate chest piece. like knights use to wear.

This is what crossbows were for...

Bodkins only worked when they struck at close to a 45 degree angle, which is why the arced shots were so important.

>45 degree
Fuck off

>Why do retards keep pushing the longbow meme?
Who the fuck is doing this? I've never seen it. Still it's probably a fun thing to try. I like to fuck around with a sheperd's sling.

usually they pull it

Pull it?

2 words.
Draw weight

It said in the video 130lb didn't leave a dent

Crossbows had a hard time piercing breastplates deep enough to actually cause injury, similar to the longbow.

Contemporary war bows present at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt had draw weights of 200+ and there were considerably more.

You're charging towards the English lines and thousands of these arrows from 200+ lb bows start hitting. Some will make it through, and bodkins will absolutely punch through mail and fabric armor which is what the majority of fighting men wore.

>Contemporary war bows present at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt had draw weights of 200+

Bull fucking shit, give your source, cunt.

>200+ lb pull

how fucking swole were these bowmen ?

>Contemporary war bows present at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt had draw weights of 200+ and there were considerably more
Proofs?

Attached: Anecdotal Evidence.jpg (1057x842, 306K)

For the same reason Hollywood keeps depicting swords being able to cut through plate armor and knights being sluggish and clumsy and also always preferring leather armor over gambesons

Bows found on the Mary Rose 100-200 years later.

Even those had similar draw weight.

People who believe the Mary Rose bows had 120+ lb draw weights are people who believe a literal actor when it comes to history.

Studies of the Mary Rose bows show ranges of 120 to 185 pounds with most being in the higher end.

Source that isn't a literal fucking actor

Profs. Kooi and Pratt.
Do some fucking research.

Kaiser disagrees and I'm much more inclined to believe his hands-on research and recreations.

>same stats as a shortbow
>substantially slower
>"hurr, muh +2 sq"

When will longbowlets learn?

Attached: 1488154267821.png (800x771, 105K)

ban assualt magic shortbows

Attached: nyF2CDy.jpg (682x626, 51K)

swole enough to detach tendons from the bone

archers-review.com/magazine-articles/june-2010-longbows-of-the-mary-rose/

A 172# bow has been well documented as found from the Mary Rose, after a few hundred years submerged.

You mean from his paper that predated any measurements of the Mary Rose bows and relied entirely on 5 samples that had been poorly stored?

Swole enough that the upper skeletal structures of archers were deformed by muscles.

>muh cherry picked paper

The longbow is the katana folded over 1 million times of England.

no, they were the minutemen of the middle ages

Peasants with sticks certainly couldn't massacre armored knights! Agincourt was an inside job!
>t.frenchy

I hunt deer with a longbow specifically because it's difficult and not as effective as other weapons. Longbows suck, and that's what makes them fun and challenging. It WAS the pinnacle of weapons technology for centuries. but now it's just a fun toy. Anyone who says a longbow is superior to any other common projectile weapon is probably the same guy who swears his katana is all he needs to handle a home invasion.

LONGBOWS CANT MELT STEEL ARMOR

Almost none of the casualities from agincourt and crecy were from arrows.

The Battle of Crecy took place during the mid-14th century. Armor during this period knight armor consisted mainly of mail and a brigandine. Plate armor was mostly standard for knight by the early 15th century (Battle of Poitier and Agincourt), but horses were still unarmored.

why didn't they just use compound bows instead?

The steel they were working with isn't even remotely comparable to modern steel, which that plate seems to be made of. I seriously doubt someone with enough autism to get era-appropriate steel turned into a breastplate would allow it to potentially be run through.

Crippled themselves for life swole.

because if a heavy arrow from a longbow with a broadhead hits you, you fucking die.

>Make a knight character
>People get surprised when he fucking tackles people and stabs them in the eye

>torags helm
>ancient staff
nigger wut

Attached: 0.jpg (500x500, 75K)

No, crossbows were for quickly outfitting untrained artillery. You can learn to use a crossbow in a day. War bows, on the other hand, required years of training just to reliably pull the damned things.

And stop abusing ellipses you degenerate Eurotrash fuck.

Checkmate atheists

Swole as fuck. Archaelogical forensic remains of archers show deformation in some bones of the shoulders due to the strain of pulling the bow.

For textile you absolutely don't want a fucking bodkin, you want a razor sharp cutting edge

This thread was on the 9th page, OP got the perfect response by the first post but you had to open the catalog, type in your shit and resurrect this shitty thread

Why?

The French lost because they were exhausted to the point of almost passing out as they had to run through a muddy shithole of a field in all their gear while being pelted by arrows.

>No, crossbows were for quickly outfitting untrained artillery.

>fucking Genoese are apparently quickly outfitted untrained dudes

all while keeping their hands up in surrender

*BRAVE*

I thought it was a mixture of that plus the horses succumbing to arrows, throwing off the riders or pinning them in heavy armour in a boggy field. Easy targets for militiamen.

Assymetric collarbone, assymetric shoulderblades, one arm longer than the other, one arm more muscular than the other... they were basically IRL deformed freaks.

No one is. I can't even recall a longbow thread ever.

Attached: 1541443023765.jpg (417x1024, 99K)

The knights were ultimately defeated in melee by the bowmen themselves.

It wasn't the archers which won Agincourt - they had actually run mostly out of arrows at that point, only having half of what they usually carried into battle. The French infantry charged up the middle of the field, churned it up into a mud bath and either drowned in it or dragged themselves through just to be slaughtered by the English Men At Arms.

It was either that they got greedy, thinking of all the rich ransoms on the knightly types, or were avoiding the bows on the flanks out of fear (their grandads having told them what happened at Crecy and Poitiers). Either way they pretty much killed themselves off as much as the English did - despite starting the day having a vast numerical advantage by most accounts.

Attached: hh102317.jpg (800x600, 138K)

Underated post.

[cont.] It's Crecy and Poitiers which were decided by the bows. At Crecy the Italian crossbowmen the Frogs had hired didn't have their pavisses (large shields) and instead of waiting for them to come up from the back of the logistics train (great organisation there) the French nobs pushed them out onto the field *at swordpoint* to deal to the foe. The English archers couldn't believe their luck and slaughtered them.

Not understanding what had just happened (or anything but the Glorious Cavalry Charge) the French shrugged, advanced and promptly died just as quickly, most of them not even reaching the English lines.

Attached: Crecy-47.jpg (1280x2005, 749K)

>all artillerists were Genoese crossbowmen
Are you really this retarded or are you just pretending?

Shhhhhh, he's pretending they don't exist.

O' come all ye faithful, to kick this namefag in the dick.

>most of them died before reaching English lines
No you nigger, the French reached the English line and were slaughtered by a combination of a superior defensive position, lack of coordination, and superior English infantry and foot knights.

the frog cope ITT

>It WAS the pinnacle of weapons technology for centuries.

You what mate?
Even many tribesmen never used longbows at all, instead going for composite bows which are easier to operate and transfer more force to the arrow than the counterpart.

Roman empire used composite bows to conquer Europe more than a millenium before Agincourt.

Literally one of the best battles between the British and the French.

You forgot the part where the author claims that horses weren't used on the battlefield after this

Attached: Battle of Crecy Aftermath.png (754x2341, 1.77M)

Bows really didn't play a major role in Roman warfare, specially earlier times when rome actually conquered europe.

Lol, do retards actually believe this or is this Crassus posting from beyond the grave?

>CRASSUS
>THEY'RE NOT RUNNING OUT OF ARROWS CRASSUS
>AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

Attached: 1539806653992.png (493x650, 766K)

No, this is Quinctilius Varus posting beyond the grave
>AUGUSTUS
>AUGUSTUS, THEY JUST KEEP ON COMING
>AUGUSTUS, THE JAVELINS AREN'T STOPPING
>FUCK.

>send in the next wave tiberius

Way to follow a thread, bitch.

Longbow is bigger hoax than holocaust. Practical archer and bowmaker here, can confirm. Tod (un)intentionally exposed it with his video on chrony speeds. Longbow made by "britain's best archer", shooting 6.8 grains per pound, shot an arrow at 139 fps which is quite slow, good selfbow will shoot a 10 grain per pound arrow in the 160-170 fps range and will not by any chance reach more than 180 yards. Totally blows all the long range bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=XSNNSh4Fuh8

Attached: horseshit.jpg (802x650, 588K)

>139fps
Lord almighty.

Attached: really calcium's my bones.jpg (800x800, 229K)

Ok to please you a specially shaped stave(stick) with a strong string. A longbow is mich simpler to make than something like a laminate bow, or a crossbow.

What would be a step up from a longbow in your experience?

In terms of simplicity of manufacture mostly, but shooting over 139 fps and also hopefully longer ranges.

>"britain's best archer"
May not be britain's best bowyer though. At any rate who cares? British armies won significant battles while armed with it, that's all that really matters. No weapon stays good for ever. Eventually armor will outpace it.

Not him but a basic bitch flipped tip flatbow would shoot faster.

Let me predict the future. In 400 years time someone will set a possiblt faithful, possibly not replica of ballistic plate from c.2050-2100 AD and shoot a possibly faithful, possibly not replica of an AR-15 at it and film it not penning it and then a bunch of retards on the telepath net on an obscure Mongolian Noodle MindForum will go
>AR-15 was a meme!
>5.56 can't penetrate anything!
>HOAX! THE ASSAULT RIFLE WAS A HOAX!
>America is shit!
>Hitler dindu nuffin rong!

Attached: 1363495560001.jpg (1080x1518, 424K)

It depends on what you need your weapon for. The simplest is to use lighter arrows to gain longer ranges, but your accuracy and penetrative power diminishes. It's a trade-off. So it's either light arrows to pepper lots of unarmoured people (or horses) from a distance, or you can use heavy arrows to try defeat individual armor at short ranges. If you mount your heavy bow on a stock as in a crossbow you increase accuracy and can aim for weak areas in armor more easily, but with lower rate of fire. Oriental bows pay-off with lighter arrows as they have faster rate of limb return (more fps), but with heavy arrows bows practicaly even up and you compare them more or less by poundage.

>At any rate who cares? British armies won significant battles while armed with it, that's all that really matters.
Well, you can go the fanboy route and claim those victories where all about the bows, or you can be sane about it and note that the bow was well used within a clever combined arms approach that managed a few significant victories against enemies who behaved in a way which was pretty far from clever. As long as we're all in the latter camp (I'm guessing you are, civilised language and whatnot) all's fine and dandy I'd say, we certainly shouldn't do the common internet mistake of going full retard in the opposite way the moment we notice that the hype isn't real.

I take solace in the fact that no matter what happens, in 400 years there will be people who know Hitler was right.