Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Archers VS Crossbowmen" video.

@torvamessorem6686 And 90 pounds is barely above the minimum requirement of what's usable in war. Real historical war longbows were probably in the 150 lbs draw weight range as average.
7
In France there were the "franc archer" that came to number at about 22.000 men. However their perfomances in actual battles had been so abysmal that they were normally used as laughing stocks in satires since 15th century. In Italian records on battles and sieges not only archers but even mounted archers are cited, owever they almost disappeared with the end of 13th century (with the 1284 naval Battle of Meloria marking the prevalence of Genoese crossbowmen over the Livornese archers), with the notable exception of Venetian archers, that were quite famous and still used to great extent and effectiveness until the end of 15th century, when they had been replaced by arquebusiers.
1
Actually the only advantage of the composite bow over the longbow is to pack a respectable draw weight in a compact package, that could be used on horseback but, for foot soldiers, the draw weight and draw lenght of the longbow is unbeatable.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Please... Draw weight is what a human can draw. Longbows used in war has a so high draw weight that it effectively changed the shape of the archers. A bow that has a draw weight of two times a longbow simply can't be drawn by a human, so is completely useless. Draw weight of composite bows is inferior to that of the longbows not because its impossible to make them with the same, or even a superior draw wheight (you can pull a string between the two ends of a steel girder, call it a bow and it will have some tons of draw weight) but because they were made to be used on horseback, and ease to use on horseback requires lower draw weight than what an infantry bowmen can use.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Bows made in 15 millenium BC were not any bette than those made after . They were simply made with what the local cultures had availabe. If you had yew, you made longbows, if you had horns bones and tendons, you made composite bows. There was not any superiority of composite bows over monolitic bows. In Modern era warfare, the draw weight and lenght weight of the longbow were unbeatable. They coupled the maximum draw weight reachable by a human with the maximum draw lenght reachable by a human.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Actually draw lenght is as important in determining the exit speed of the arrow as draw weigh is, because arrows don't pass Instantly from 0 to max speed, they have to accelerate, the longer the draw lenght is, the longer the draw weight is applied to the arrow, the more it accelerates. In Modern era warfare, the draw weight and lenght weight of the longbow were unbeatable. They coupled the maximum draw weight reachable by a human with the maximum draw lenght reachable by a human. In this context, where was the "cradle of civilization" has no importance at all. BTW, what's the point in telling, to someone that said that bows were made with what was available, that bows could be made with different materials? It's already implied in saying that they were made with what was available.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc The fact that you said someone called you stupid when none did makes you seem stupid, and unable to read too. Forced laugh confirms the opinion also. Not all woods are created equal. The best wood for archery, yew, is specific of Europe and N. Africa, and from Europe, and made of yew, are the oldest fragments and complete preserved samples of bows. Hazelnut is even more specific, being likely originated in the British Islands. The oldest composite bows originated in Asiatic grasslands and Egypt, places not exactly known for the supply of woods and, for nomadic tribes the "advantage of the composite bow over the longbow is to pack a respectable draw weight in a compact package, that could be used on horseback". However, historically, that draw weight was not that much because "they were made to be used on horseback, and ease to use on horseback requires lower draw weight than what an infantry bowmen can use". Again you don't understand the basics of archery. Draw lenght is the lenght a human can draw. If composite bows have more draw lenght than longbos, then they are made wrong and useless.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Hazelnut, the tree, originated in the british islands. The oldest traces are from Scotland. Actually it doesn't seem you having any grasp of what you are talking about, and it's not surprising. You simply call "bias" anything that doesn't fit your narrative. It's typical of people that tries to adapt reality to their opinion, instead of searching for actual facts. I already talked of mounted and foot archers. That shallow history lesson is really nothing new, sorry.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc You are criticizing actual sources without bringing anything to counter them, or to support your believes. That's pretty usual of you. Unfortunately that's not how world works. I dont believe you have actually read a book in your life, sorry.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Again, you are criticizing it without bringing anything to support your tales. It's quite evident you know nothing on the matter.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc So you don't know the meaningo of "criticizing". That's not exactly surprising.
1
@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Still lacking of arguments I see.
1
Why? To associate Italians with the crossbow is an anglo-centric thing, due to the presence of Genoese crossbowmen at Crécy, but Metatron isn't British. Venetian archers were quite famous and still used to great extent and effectiveness until the end of 15th century, when they had been replaced by arquebusiers.
1
On the other hand, arrows requires manteinance, do the the feather made fletching, while quarrels are almost eternal.
1