Some years ago there was a program about the Mary Rose long bows, where they decided to test some of them and see firstly if they would actually bend enough to be strung (some did, but not all), and then what draw weight they would handle after those years in storage. Amazing! (There were so many that it was an acceptable loss). One of the points raised in that program was that there was an edict, that ALL yeomen of England were required BY LAW to learn to shoot from a very early age, and maintain that proficiency through out adulthood. They were able to identify the archers from the Mary Rose by their skeletons: Their BONES were thickened (and strengthened), in places to withstand the wear and tear from the over-developed ligaments caused by shooting the Longbow! Present day bodies do not have that same level of training, and so are not strong enough (with the odd exception), to handle the rigour. Rather like ballet dancers and gymnasts needing to start training at 7 or 8 years, to mould the body while it is still developing. Those who start later in life have much more of a challenge to match their fellows who grew up with the 'dicipline.'

Hello from the U.S, I’m a history student with a medieval studies minor in university. I have always wondered what other arms a longbowman would have carried into the field for use in close quarters. Thanks a ton, fantastic videos!

I'm in the USA, I've shot compound bows, longbows, recurve and flat bows. I agree with your assessment. You have to be comfortable with the bow, size, draw weight and the rest location if it has one. I would imagine, if at Agincourt (sp?) If the Archers weren't using their own bows, they would have adjusted them to their preferences. They would have traded bows as you said I have a 90 lb longbow of Yew. I can't use it anymore due to a shoulder injury. After I got the blank and tillered it I spent almost as long adjusting little things about it. I know they did it too. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I think the Mary Rose bows probably were the same draw weight range as bows from earlier periods. We will as you said never know. You do a great job discussing the subject, Sir.

I believe, broadly, that the poundages of the bows in the two contexts are about the same or, if you like, they share a similar poundage range. I tend to believe the Mary Rose archers would have used heavier bows on average, because the archers on board the King's Flagship must've been the best archers among thousands, selected to be part of the crew of that specific ship, so they were probably operating on the top floors of that power spectrum. In Agincourt there were way more bows and archers, of all builds and schools and I think Agincourt could've seen the less potent and the above average in strength archer and bow in action at the same time. Even though 130 years fall in between the two scenarios, plate protections were widely known and they were getting developed at a quick rate. That also makes me think bows were being made accordingly. I agree with your point that a bow can be adapted to the immediate needs of an archer and that he's not necessarily bound to a single bow all the time.

I love your videos. I've been blowing through them over the past couple weeks and I can't get enough. Thank you for the content, keep it coming!

Another interesting snippet Kevin, keep em coming 🏹

I always look forward to your reviews. As always thank you

There is an interesting parallel in some of the Eastern Roman military manuals: "Each man should have a bow suited to his own strength and not above it, more indeed on the weaker side" (Taktika, by Emperor Leo). Though of course, we shouldn't interpret that to mean that they shot flimsy, weak bows. To an archer who maxes out at 120 pounds, a 90 pound bow is likely quite comfortable.

About 15 yrs ago I attended a medieval fete in Malestroit, Brittany. In the local cinema an English bowman gave a great talk, was a big bearded guy and had a war bow of 150lbs which some people tried to draw. 😂 But in his presentation he had some calculations by a university team about the striking power of an arrow. The war arrows were a heavier shaft and with different styles of head. What interested me was the calculation of how hard they hit from a distance as they were shot high and followed a parabolic curve. They found that as they topped that curve they actually accelerated and produced a much higher striking power than they'd imagined...in fact they thought they'd lose power over the distance with drag but they didn't.

Just came across your videos - great stuff, presented by an intelligent, sensible man. I live in the U.S. Was an archer from my early days, and love the longbow, but mine draws 70 lb., and after rotator cuff injury I had to give it up to one of my sons. Vicissitudes of age. Looking at the heavy poundages used on the Mary Rose, we might want to consider their use - shooting from a ship, you need to carry an arrow a long distance w/good penetration, and so these archers might have been marine specialists. My wife's maternal grandfather was an avid archer and bowyer mid-20th century - your comment about adjusting bows is well taken - that's just what our 'old timers' did as well.

I bloody love your channel.🙃

Love watching these fillms.

great to see you started your own channel I am looking forward to follow along :D

Hi Kevin, hope you're well. You correctly answered your question 'I don't know'. Nobody knows. But a few bits of information of the time might point us into the right region. My guess is the bows averaged somewhere in the 140# range for the English army archers of the 100 Years War, which I don't think is too far off the Mary Rose average so I'd suggest there wasn't much difference? My guess is based upon the characteristics of the ammunition used, and what that ammunition was expected to do. 1/2" rear tapered or barrelled shafts of poplar or ash 28+ inches long in the main, many over 30" long, a forged bodkin or broadhead, and long bound goose fletchings make for a heavy arrow. Heavy enough to hit like a sledgehammer. Then, the arrow was also expected to fly over 200 yards - to make the King's distance as a mark of the quality of the weapons and the strength and skill of the archer. I'm not sure if it was 240 yards, or paces. I suspect that the yew and other bow wood trees haven't evolved much in the last 600 years given their time on earth so far, there are yews alive today that easily predate the 100 years war..so I'd reason that the wood then and now wasn't much different. From my own experience and that of others I know, longbows of 100# or so struggle to make those sort of distances with that kind of arrow, plus a half inch shaft arrow, with usually a stiff spine as a result, generally doesn't fly nicely from longbows of that sort of weight... unless it's just me and I'm rubbish. My 110# seems happiest with 3/8" tapered 30" arrows with which it will go well over 200 yards, but switch to half inch war arrows and it struggles - and it's good, and for a longbow, fast. So what I'm leading to is the draw weight of a bow to effectively lob the kind of ammunition they used hard enough to upset the enemy(from the examples we know of and the writings of the time) in my questionable opinion, would need to be 120# plus to even get there. There are archers today like Mark Stretton, Joe Gibbs, Simon Stanley, and some others, who can shoot 150/160# with ease and accuracy, with Mark and Joe at least going up to 200+# at their limit, so going back to a time when work was physical, and archery a way of life from an early age, I see no reason why 140# would not be a manageable and militarily effective average weight for a professional medieval archer. Still, I don't know either. How could I when nobody else does, but that's my opinion and if you don't like it, I've got others! (Grouch Marx). Enjoy Canada Kevin, it looks great and with plenty of space for shooting!

Thoroughly interesting. Subscribed!

I actually never gave the idea of shaving down bows individually and how that affects its power any thought. Very interesting to consider, though.

So interesting to listen to..top man

Very useful answer. Thank you.

I have only a moderate interest in late mediaeval warfare and weapons but I listened with great interest to your entire video because of your beautiful, clear English and your compelling presentation. If you had been explaining mediaeval eating habits or clothing I would have been just as beguiled. Keep up the good work, and thank you!

Very interesting school of thought,thank you

good explanation and train of thought

Love youre vids. Thanks

"we don't know, and we'll never know" I don't trust any historian who is too proud to utter these words, it's one of the things we have to acknowledge- that we have exhausted all available sources of information about a specific topic without a definitive answer one way or the other.

One of my earliest memories is visiting the Mary rose in Portsmouth i think down south anyway I'm a relatively new subscriber i worked at Warwick castle when you did. I doubt i talked to you i have Asperger's and don't find human interaction easy, to say the least. So glad to have found you i did history for gcse it was awful we basically did the enclosure system for a year and the clearances of Scotland for another year. I mean, you'd imagine we'd learn something about our kings and queens but no just what i deemed extremely boring stuff. I on occasion worked in the aidio booth at the castle when i did i could hear you speaking to tourists it was super interesting, so I'm chuffed to bits to have found you have a KZfaq channel. Proud supporter of ths.

Thank you Kevin .

Great answer to a good question. Thank you. There's something about listening to the experienced observations of a professional, quite different from the opinions of the self taught earlier promoted.

Very good points in there regarding the ammunition "status", both for arrows and bows as well. That's something we don't hear or consider very often in these topics. That makes a lot of sense, since we know the military used to store loads of swords and blades of all kinds but keep them unsharpen for instance, and they would only go to sharpening once issued. Might as well be the case with bows for all we know. They did it with staves of course, but they could just as well have stored high poundage, thick, bows, and shave them down when issued with various considerations in mind...

I feel you would be a great host for a show. You did a brilliant job on the video about arrowhead removal. You have intriguing expressions, articulate yourself well, and speak with a pleasant voice. I could definitely watch you for a greater part of my day, and can’t say that I’d feel it’d have been a waste of time. Please keep offering us content.👍

I occasionally shoot with Simon Stanley, I can't pull the poundage he can, but I do have a 70# @28" (or 80# @32") carbon/wood laminate American flat bow that Jim Neaves at Centaur archery made for me. It keeps up with the higher poundage bows due to it's more efficient design. I used to do target archery (Olympic recurve - not that I did the Olympics, it's just what it is called) then I moved on to field archery and then started with the roving shoots. I still like field archery (our club has left the NFAS to go independent, I was an NFAS coach, but there are too many rules now. it got silly) but I have to say there is something about all shooting together heading out to 250 - 300yds. Watching your arrows fly clear across a field. Thanks for the vid.

Thank you very informative stranger to think there so much that goes in to fitting a bow to the archer one would never think that an archer would customise his own bow

Thanks Kev N Julie - great question, very interesting answer :-)

Now that's an interesting idea/theory.

Rapidly becoming my favourite history/archery channel. One thing I wondered is whether range markers were used with the longbow or did bowmen practice en masse at different, set ranges. Thanks for posting.

Hello Kevin, I'm a Brit stuck in Western Newfoundland and I'd give my left arm to work with archery equipment, hang on, that wouldn't really work would it lol. Your videos are always informative and entertaining, the best way to learm. The last longbow I had made was only in the 40 odd pound region, but it sent arrows into the boss just fine. Thank you so much for all you do. Mark.

Excellent 👍👍

Great topic 👏

I agree about the bows on the Mary Rose that were in cases were probably not issued yet so may have been intended to be shaved down when brought into service. The ship capsized in a battle so the archers would have their bows in their hands not stored in cases.

it would be fun to listen to this guy just tell stories, hes super interesting and a decent fellow

I'm American, but I love British history, especially medieval history.

Hi Kevin, just over 2 years ago before covid lock down hit us, we were on tour of the south in our tin tent (motor home) and we visited the Mary Rose exhibition. It was absolutely brilliant. Being a late starter to archery I just had to try pulling the 2 longbows attached to the wall, a 40lb and 80lb and I did manage both. At that time I was 72 so felt quite chuffed at that. What really impressed me was the full skeleton of an bowman, pointing out the parts of his skeleton which showed he was an archer. Anyways young man keep these vids coming. Peter R.

This made me chuckle. Sometimes there's no answer just speculation and that's OK

Great point about bowmen shaving their bows to suit! That makes real sense. It would take only a minute or two using tools that every man in those days had on him (i.e. a knife), though a plane or draw-knife wouldn't be hard to find.

very interesting

I had an Ancestor who was an Archer in the Service of Lord Clifford from Bradford who fought at the battle of Flodden against the Scots in 1513. Most Ambler men were over 6ft tall and powerfully built.

Eccellent points here! Eccelent!!!

I just wanted to say that I appreciate this video. I think you're spot on in how you look at it, especially given the variability of yew. I know that Will Sherman has found that exact replicas of any individual bow vary in draw weight by 40lbs or more - which other empirical and scientific evidence backs up - so we quite literally can't estimate what the draw weight was. All we can say for sure is that it was what they were comfortable with and what was sufficient effective at the time.

Being comfortable with your weapons is key to success in combat that's for sure...I shoot, recurve, long bow and compound as well as being versed in many types of firearms both civilian and military...I've always been comfortable with the AR platform especially the Carbine/M4 variants, Ive shot several different configurations of the FAL and was never comfortable with it even though I was better than average accurate shooting it. I always have my bows, rifles/carbines, shotguns and handguns customized to myself.

There's a great longbow shot buy Joe Gibbs using a 140lb over about 150 meters it was posted a few hours ago Trebuchet against a Medieval Longbow. In a battle where range is priceless and thousands of arrows are in flight every second, I can see why they would sacrifice a bit of accuracy still being better than anyone from now for more power and greater distance,

Absolutely fair... You know what you're doing.

I believe that the bows found on the Mary Rose are unique, or very nearly so, and surprised historians, not the least because of the weight of the draw on many of them.

I think the expression horses for courses comes to mind .

Brilliant... someone who isn't afraid to say we don't know! And as you say, bows often benefit from some fiddling and fetting. A good 80# will out shoot a bad 100#. (btw I am bowyer)

Hey loving this channel! I was curious, during the famous battles of Crecy, Agincourt etc., were longbowmen given commands to fire their arrows in a volley together or was it more fire at will, or a combination of both? Thanks.

I love listening to this man talk. I'm not a huge fan of most English accents, not sure which regional accent this is. It's how I imagine soldiers of this time period speaking.

To all those who say the archer on the Mary Rose was an elite. They were not, unless you want to classify indentured soldiers in general as an elite. The soldiers on the Mary Rose was part of the captain's own retinue. There was nothing special about them in comparison to the archers at Agincourt. The vast majority of the archers recruited for the Agincourt campaign was raised by indenture by the men-at-arms themselves. The King brought only 1,450 archers recruited by Commission of Array from his own lordships, such as Cheshire, Lancashire and Brecon, but those were famous for the quality of their longbowmen. He recruited 12,000 archers as a total, and 9,400 participated at the siege of Harfleur. Probably only the best in the country. We have at least 20 sources telling us that they only wanted the best when they recruited archers. At the battle he had 5,000 archers. One source can tell us that the pool of archers to draw men from in the beginning of the 16th century numbered 150,000 men. After 1381 and the peasant’s revolt the number of free men increased rapidly. In 1387 workers had to practice at the butts too, so the pool of men to draw archers from was quite large in 1415. So if we allow for a pool of only 2/3 of this in 1415 before the Agincourt campaign, 12,000 archers would only be 12 % of the total. In other words, only the best. According to Gesta Henrici Quinti, an eye witness at the battle, arrows *“by their very force* [lit. hostility] *pierced the sides and visors* [lit. covers] *of their helmets* ..." To do that against thinner wrought iron and low carbon steel plates, it takes an arrow with an initial kinetic energy of around 120-150 Joules, according to tests done. It would take a bow in the 135-150 lb range to do that. Here we have Dominic Mancini's description of Richards III's archers brought by Gloucester and Buckingham into London in 1483, 68 years after Agincourt "... their bows and arrows are thicker and longer than those used by other nations, just as their bodies are stronger than other peoples, for they seem to have hands and arms of iron. *The range of their bows are no less than our arbalest."* In other words, English archers could reach the same maximum range as arbalests. I asked Andreas Bichler what range he get with his 1,197.1 lbs composite replica crossbow from the second half of the 15th century. This is not the rampart crossbow he is known for, but a one-man operated 3.54 kg crossbow. He told me it depends on the bolt weight. A 70 gram bolt will reach out to 300 meters (328 yards). A 100 gram bolt will reach out to 250 meters (273 yards). Most of the bolts are around 80 grams and therefore in line with the best heavy yew bows in terms of range when the arrow is around 63-64 grams. Joe Gibbs have shot a 63.7 gram arrows over 300 yards (274 meters) with a 175 lb bow at 30". If I remember correctly, it was 312 yards (285 meters). The arrow left the bow at 210 fps (64 m/s). If we take a look at his tests on KZfaq, "Speed test of Mary Rose replica bows", we find these results: 145 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 64.3 m/s, 63 gram arrow. 150 lb Oregon yew bow at 30", 62.88 m/s, 63 gram arrow. 160 lb Swiss yew bow at 30", 63.947 m/s, 63 gram arrow. Here we can see that the speed is approximately the same as when he did that record shot, so he should get results similar to his record shot (or at least close enough). This clearly indicate that the bows were from 135 lb and up. The bows on the Mary Rose were stored in chests and was the property of the Crown, not personal items. Therefore it is possible they were bows to be used by the regular sailors, as well as being secondary and replacement bows for the archers. It's actually almost certain because other ships during the battle had no soldiers but still they had plenty of bows. The ship had 185 soldiers, 30 gunners and 200 sailors, but the number of bows were 250. This indicate that at least 65 of the weaker bows were meant to be used by the sailors. The number of heavy bows from 135 lb and up, estimated by Kooi, in terms of percentages, match up with the number of soldiers well. To conclude. We know that all the soldiers, both on the Mary Rose and the Agincourt campaign, were raised by indenture, so they were essentially equal. We have descriptions of armour being pierced at the battle of Agincourt and we have tested what it takes to do that, we have Dominic Mancini's comparison to an arbalest in terms of range, and we have the Mary Rose bows and the test of replica bows to match up with the range. The conclusion. From 135-140 lb and up. In addition to this we have the arrows, as mentioned in Steve Djurovich's post. 3/8" arrows require a bow around 100 lb or heavier to do great. 1/2" arrows need heavy draw weights in the 140 lb range to do well.

I've been shooting the same recurve bow for over 50 years. It still gets the job done same as my modern bows . 👍🤙✌

Tiny bows are fun..shooting is invigorating...fly winging is a challenge. 😎

Tell us more about your time in the Military, and perhaps you could do a video with Joerg Sprave

As an historian myself (in religion) we tend sometimes to overcomplicate things out of our need to analyze (or sometimes to make the subject more "special").But as you stated, looking at it from a pragmatic view is a good reasoning. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. :)

Haha! -Thanks for debating my question here Kevin, and you're absolutely right, it doesn't really matter about one man having a heavier weighted bow than the other man. The "My bow's bigger than your bow, my Dad's bigger than your Dad" macho BS syndrome! -Although I bet you it all went on in those days -blokes never change, in fact they were probably worse then, as they would've suffered from boredom a lot more! As long as you have a bow that feels comfortable and you're able to hit the target effectively, who the hell cares. My self yew blow is 110#, it's completely unnecessary and an effort to draw continually, but in a way that's the point, because It's an experiment into pushing yourself and experiencing exactly what those guys were experiencing 600 years ago. It's a good workout, and above all it's very rewarding seeing a dozen heavy hand forged arrows thump into the target! Thanks again for the entertaining vids, keep it up!

About the poundage and spine... Are the numerous arrows and longbows aboard the Mary Rose generally matched in spine? I mean, based on what you would expect from the arrow remains dimensions. It could indicate customization and shaving if the arrows were underspined as was, I'd think.

G'day Kevin, may I ask you a quick question? With your experience as an archer and as a soldier, what kind of ranges would they have operated at? And also what kind of poundage would still be effective against an enemy soldier? I only shoot about a 50lb hunting longbow, love it to bits by the way, and yes I find it comfortable to shoot. But I dont think it'll do much against a French knight charging at me. I love your videos and I believe you are one of the best storytellers out there. I would like to wish you all the best from New Zealand. Cheers, Joshua

I'm an avid reloader and used to compete in High Power rifle competitions. This question of poundage reminds me of people who reload to chase velocity. Chasing velocity or trying to get the maximum speed in FPS out of a bullet does not equal accuracy, in fact it is detrimental to accuracy. My most accurate loads are always middle of the range loads. I don't know or even care how fast the bullet is travelling as long as I can achieve 1 inch or less at 100 yards and in some cases 1/2 inch depending on my bullet choice. I would think that an Archer would not care about poundage as long as he can hit the mark at a given distance. Just my opinion.

Hi Kevin. I made laminate longbow here in the UK with 5 other guys on a guided weekend course. Most of them were aiming for a draw weight of between 30 and 40 pound. I wanted to feel something similar to the medieval archers and I ended up with a draw weight on my bow of 75 pound. Its hard to draw as I don't have the physique of a medieval bowman but I managed to learn to shoot it proficiently with some practice. the point is, a professional bowman would have known his abilities with any draw weight of bow he got his hands on. I have shot 100 pound bows and it took 3 or 4 shots to get my hand and eye set up for that bow and I am just an enthusiast. If I was doing it every day as a professional soldier, no bow would phase me but there must have been bows of varying weights made to an Archers preference. just like your rifle.

Excellent point. A weapon properly fitted is WAY more useful and accurate. I help coach a youth trap shooting team. If a small boy tries to shoot a full size 12 guage before he is ready, he won't hit a thing and get discouraged. Give him a youth size 20 guage and he's knocking clays out of the sir left and right.

Makes sense to customize your weapon as we still do it now

Very interesting subject. I am agreeing with Kevin. I have a replica of the smallest bow from the Mary Rose. And it’s draw weight is 80#32 lbs but at my draw length is 65#29-70#30 lbs. so perhaps not all those on the Mery Rose were not so heavy but I have heard that other replicas of the same bow ended up at 120lbs. Who knows how heavy the bows were in the hundred years war🤷🏼‍♂️🏹

Question for you did the longbow have different longbow string's made of different types of string's enjoy your KZfaq channel keep up the amazing work

Makes perfect sense.... Real common sense. 👍

A fair point. My old English longbow was made of osage and pulled 66lbs. But old age has taken its toll. And at 66 I now use a 46lb trilaminate bow. As you say, tis all about comfort. Flaxen Saxon.

Excellent point. I suppose it is possible to shave a bow and reduce required force and you cannot do opposite. Each ship had at least one skilled carpenter in crew who could do simple customization.

Do you think that bowmen of the time where expected to draw a minimum poundage? Great video, glad I found your videos after seeing you all the years ago at Warwick!

As Fabio suggests the Mary Rose crew would have been elite, so, although the longbow was no longer as central to military tactics there is no reason to suppose they would have been of lower draw weights. Looking the other way around we might get an approximation if we were to discover a similar sample of skeletons or preserved artifacts from the earlier period.

I wonder if a large volley of arrows would travel farther or maybe the centre ones would go farther than a single shot?? Similar to shot from a cannon the centre of mass travels farther than the outside resembling an inverted cone if you could see it.

I'm sure they varied enormously as did their users young men still growing and strong men so proud they had a bow no other man could draw

I wonder how the training and practice of the Agincourt bowmen compared to that of the Mary Rose bowmen?

Well Kevin. I've had that theory, like you for many years. Shotgun stocks look like a stock. But when shaped down to fit the gun itself its a different kettle of fish. SO were the Mary Rose bows ready for that final fitting or shaving down as it were?. Like you say Sir we will never know. But my god I've got through pints, talking about this subject. Haha so who cares what poundage. I used to shoot 70 to 80 pound. I'm 70 next year. I now shoot 37 to 40lb.love it. Excellent video Kevin. Great work.

How were arrows/ arrow heads issued out? We’re archers issued a certain number of a certain type? In particular at crece and agincourt.

Idk what the bows at Agincourt were but going by the type of wood & measuring the diameter of the Mary Rose bows we do now know that the weights varied quite a bit. You have some that were just around 100lbs or so, a few as high as 210 & everything in between. However we do have sources from the medieval era that say that to participate in a hunt amongst the gentry a bow had to be at least 130 if i remember correctly. Take from this what you will but in my opinion the bow wights on the battlefield & in hunting in Europe probably varied by time, place etc. Im half Native American & our bows tend to be around 75-100lbs but my ancestors practiced mounted archery & speed shooting against organic armor/shields. Which influenced the tool/weapon choices as well as being varied based on the size of the man etc.

Honest answer to an honest question. I have long thought that troops of that era were mainly drawing the bows that were issued to them. Sure they were matched to the man as best they could, but not bespoke weapons.

Hello Sir. Thankyou for your footage and interesting information you have submitted. I have a question, which made me curious. When you were in the army and your armourer added weights to your rifle, to make it easier to handle, I was wondering how he did this? Would it be similar to balancing a car wheel? It's something I've never thought about, but really intrigues me and the idea principles and thought processes too. Thankyou Sir. Best wishes, Ian.

hello kevin i watched and listened to you about the mary rose bow and poundage ,, i am very interested in and hopefully getting a yew bow or war bow ,, but i am not sure of the poundage of what bow i should get as l have a bit of a injury to my shoulder which i had surgery on ... what poundage do you think i should get from a low bow kevin ?!!?!? ,, as you are a bit of an expert in long bows ....i am a subscriber to your channel which i enjoy very much kevin listening to your storys of history gone by :-)

Wonderful answer! Interesting as buggary, even tho inconclusive. It's how a lot of history has to be answered, if truthful. Highly educated opinions and theories. Based on their actual facts. 👍

Enjoy your videos. Horace Ford wrote in his book "Archery Theory & Practice" that the best bow he ever used was a 68" long 55 pound draw weight Yew Bow to shoot the York Round of 144 arrows. He was Britians best for 11 years, then his hand tendons had enough.

Exceĺlent topic for conversation. I heard somewhere that when shooting for range, 12 arrows was the limit that archers could reliably shoot before they were physically exhausted. Is that anywhere close to true?

Hi kevin, how are the shoulders?, i have bursitis and a bit of arthritis in the fingers after 45 years in the meat industry so sadly my longbow is a wall piece now, even the compound is an effort at times...

There's no way to know for sure BUT..........considering that weapons and armour evolve together, I would expect that when armour was at it;s peek distribution and quality on average, the bows would need to be the most powerful. It just makes sense. The same happened to firearms. They needed to improve a lot to get through that late period anti bullet armour. The right tool for the right job.

I’m convinced that the barrel chested powerful war bow men that when they had used up their arrows threw down their bows and picking up war hammers , maces and bollock daggers and went in close ….the french knights who had endured the charge and arrow storm whilst having restricted vision and with nervous tension and adrenaline bursting through their veins were by now exhausted…but the lightly armoured longbowmen had agility and power in the mud of agincourt ……resulting in the massacre that happened….

Thanks Kevin. Another way of coming at this problem is to ask: Were the archers on the Mary Rose as good as the archers at Agincourt? At the time of the Mary Rose (1545), the musket was beginning to replace the bow as at the weapon of choice, although bow was a significant weapon of war for another 100 years. It is reasonable to speculate if the number of archers in England, and the quality of those archers, had fallen in the 130 years since Agincourt. My guess is that the quality of the archer is more important than the poundage of the bow - which is something you often mention.

We don't really know the draw-weights of the Mary Rose bows, because the modern replicas were made of inferior wood, and thus were less powerful than the originals. Additionally the fine-grain wood in the MR bows had a greater restoring force, so the limbs of the bows moved faster when returning to their original position, giving a higher 'muzzle-velocity' for a given draw-weight. As far as the bows at Agincourt, it seems more likely that they'd have maybe four classes of bow, of increasing power. An archer would ask "Can I have a Category 2 bow" for example, knowing that it would be roughly correct for him.

Longbow or Crossbow. Which is the most efficient? As in accuracy. I understand the crossbow takes longer to load and fire. Also which has the best range. I'm assuming the Bow has a greater range.

♥️♥️♥️👌

Hi Kevin, A reenactorism i have found from a few mates of arrows just be pushed in the ground before battle. I doubt the archers would do this and just put them in the belt or a quiver. But which do you believe the archers of agincourt and other battles would have been more likely a quiver or just pushed in the ground?

Did you ever hear about Karl der Große, Carolus Magnus? He tried learning to write, but he always broke the feather, because he was trained since his childhood, to handle swords, axes, I m convinced people back then were way stronger than today!

“He has to fight the enemy, he can’t be fighting his own equipment “- Professor Tobias Capwell

Regarding Agincourt. I’ve watched a few vids on the effectiveness of longbows on armoured knights and read a lot of comments and most of them are concerned with arrows penetrating breastplates, and i envisioned the Hollywood rain of arrows landing sort of randomly among the crowd. Then i saw your yarn about shooting blunts at a couple of reenactors, which i found quite amusing. If all the archers were capable of placing their shots and they picked the most vulnerable places, then the archers would have been a lot more devastating to the French and the argument over penetration would be moot?

Makes sense

Never heard of an armourer putting weights on a rifle, I spent 13 years in the RAF and obviously had a lot of interaction with armourers, had quite a few as friends as they were a technical trade like me.

What was the average arrow length in those days. Have always wondered what length Kevin shoots.

👍🏼