Great video, Shad. Growing up, I was always intrigued by recurve bows and wondered why medieval Europeans didn't use them for mounted archery like the Turks or Arabs. The books I read either said that they didn't have the technology or that it was somehow against the knightly code of ethics. Then one day I was looking at the Bayeux Tapestry and saw a Norman knight using a recurve now on horseback! So then I was confused. Glad you made this video to clear up my misconceptions. I'd love to see a video on mounted archery in the Middle Ages and where the misconception that Europeans didn't practice it originated. Keep up the good work.
@@patricialavery8270 I mean It depends? Bows and crossbows are designed for what they were made to do. Crossbows new weapon against the growing armor of the era. As not every army is gonna have well trained archers but crossbowmen? Is a different story. It's easy to load and shoot. Compared to their English longbowmen counter parts.
Recurve bows and self-longbows were used across the entirety of Eurasia. The Romans stationed Syrian bowman with recurve bows in Britain (known for its wet climate), and longbows were commonly used in parts of South Asia/India and southern China.
Can you point us to the Norman knights with recurve bow on BT? I can find only one character with a bow on a horse, at the very end, and it looks like perfectly straight bow, with no siyahs/recurved tips.
Hi Shad, thanks a lot for the shoutout. Thumb draw in my opinion is a lot harder for heavy bows. Even some horse archers also use finger draw when necessary, depending on the situation (examples include a sore/damaged thumb, lost thumb ring, or personal preferences). Thumb draw on the other hand allows a further draw length so more power stroke, and theoretically a faster release (although more testing should be done). On horseback, both thumb and finger draw can be done, and on both sides. There are many variations of these techniques which is mostly forgotten in the modern archery world today. Glad you can revive some of this interest with your popular channel!
Is thumb draw harder because it's harder to use a thumb, or is it harder because you learned 3 finger Mediterranean draw as your first and primary draw method?
@@Intranetusa That's a complicated question for several reasons and even go as far as not necessarily harder rather it's just different. The obvious thing is that the same weight is loaded on one joint rather than three is more taxing on your hand, that being said the different wrist position results in a more stable forearm. Now the not so obvious thing, in my experience shooting thumb draw requires a different mindset from shooting 3 finger (regardless whether it's mediterranean or 3 under). While release can be clearer (seeing as you only have to loosen one joint instead of three), thumb draw comes in many variations (both in grip and anchor point) so finding the correct combination that suits you can be a challenge. The last thing that comes to mind is the bow hand, in case of thumb draw the two hand need to work together in order to get a good release and that coordination might pose a challenge. Keep in mind I might be leaving stuff out, that's mostly because I'm still learning and I have a shitton of things to discover still.
Thumb draw requires practice from an early age to master heavy bows. The Steppe cultures started early with children playing with small bows. Furthermore, they oftentimes used a thumb ring for additional leverage. They understood that heavier the bow, the greater the stand off distance: i.e., you can hit someone before they hit you. Mongolian-style archery using a Mongolian bow is often used with a thumb ring.
Hi Shad, In Hungary there are planty of "forgotten" bow. I have "forgotten" ones as well. We call these bows as traditional bows. Here is a video about a hungarian word champion. ruclips.net/video/CCa2PdpZMN8/видео.html
Historical pranks that ought to have happened: The King of France sells the King of England a large shipment of high quality recurve bows at a very low price. French Courtier: "My liege! Why would You outfit our sworn enemy with such mighty weaponry?!" Le Roi: "Pffft, zese bows, zey are useless in ze rain, and England hasn't 'ad a summer for ze last two hundred years!" Monsieur Courtier: "Soooo... You plan on invading ze isles?" Big Roy: "Ma non! Buuuuuut We have ALSO sold a boatload of Byzantine Steel to ze Scots!" *Hon-hon-hon intensifies*
There is an argument that the English longbow had some recurve to them. Iirc it is the warbows brought up with the Mary Rose are what our English longbows are copied from and they all went flat in the water. The recurve bow Shad shows at 17:41 might be how they were shaped judging from English medieval artwork.
@@trevtall1094 It's wrong though. Longbows were made in the straight limb shape long before the Mary Rose was discovered. Victorian archery in particular lionized the traditional straight limbed bow as a (now disproven) example of English historical superiority.
Growing up i loved the Rangers Apprentice series by John Flanagan. The first bow the main character gets is a short recurve because of the lower poundage for higher velocity. Its good to see short bows get some love.
“The medieval bow time forgot” I was thinking about the recurve every time you criticized fiction for having small bows… All jokes aside, I knew history of and practiced on the recurve before I even knew about longbows. So I thought if the recurve ALL the time in your videos, I think it’s really cool that you’re clearing up your misconceptions and addressing the recurve, it’s such a great bow.
It's a much faster, stronger bow than that plank with a stick Brittish are always pushing, and also it can be used from horseback, but real recurve bows are made from composite. Usually keratin, leather, sinnew and yew. Used by the Hungarians long before coming to europe and used by their ancestors the Huns to demolish Roman legions
In my headcanon when playing D&D I always just assumed that the "shortbow" and "longbow" category names were an artifact of historical convention that no longer referred to the size of the bows, either dating back to the earliest days when the first bows were invented before composite bows, lamination or the idea of recurves even became a thing, and all bows were de-curve self-bows, or that the original naming of "short" and "long" bows referred to the range of the bow and not its size, and that by the time, in setting, of the campaign, bows were just classified by their performance, so any bow that performed the way the rules state a longbow should, is a longbow, regardless of its physical size, and any bow that performed the way a shortbow does is one, regardless of its size. I mean, once we get to enchanted bows and magical materials one ought to be able to make a bow of any size fire at any poundage, with the poundage controlled by the magic....
Considering the strong influence Native Americans have had on North American archery, there is a pretty good chance that the short and long bows in D&D are based on their traditions. Many Native American tribes had 2 bows built in similar styles; one that was long, with a heavy draw weight used primarily for warfare, and one that was shorter, lighter, and used for hunting. Longer bows will generally allow for longer draw lengths, which accelerates the arrow longer, which then results in faster arrows that can fly further. But longer limbs weigh more, which means the arrow accelerates less quickly. So you are right in that with any number of magical materials, you could make a shortbow that was more powerful than a longbow.
AD&D was even weirder you had Longbows and Shortbows which is mostly a typical wargaming type categorization to make a distinction between armies that had formidable firepower like the English and those that had bows, but which didn't seem to have a critical effect in battle. Gygax must have consulted some 1960's books on weapons or encyclopaedia and discovered that they used a different type of bow in the east. And given that the mysterious orient had superior weapons, martial arts and all that mystical stuff their bows were better so that basic European bows were OK, but the really fancy Oriental models allowed you to use your strength and dexterity bonuses, but they both came in long and short version. Same with long and short type weapons, almost every single time the larger one is considered much harder to use and requires a highly trained user, whereas any peon or wizard with tiny withered arms can lift up a short weapon and be competent with it. It's all about game mechanics and introducing distinctions and principles that didn't apply in real life. The only advantage of short weapons was that they were handier in tight quarters, not because they were mean to be easier to handle somehow.
Not wrong. The problem is always jargon and terms used. To modern bowhunters, a longbow means one thing. To those of us who make bows, where tiller and limb geometry define styles, it means something else. To the British Longbow Historical Society, something else again. I will call a Hadza hunting bow a "short longbow" because that best describes how the bow WORKS,, because I make bows. I struggle to call an English longbow a recurve, even if it has recurved tips (which I would, in most cases Shad cited,, actually call "reflexed" tips.) So, yeah.
My interpretation is that D&D had short bow refer to a bow that was short, and long bow to one that was long. The distinction between manufacturing details is covered by the "mighty" modifier. A basic short bow is unlikely to be a recurve, but a mighty +4 one that someone with 18 strength can take full advantage of will be taking advantage of every possible trick to beef it up.
@@cuernimus Perhaps "hunting bow" and "war bow" would be a better categorisation then, if you wanted to split bows into two categories for gameplay reasons.
Its Not realy forgotten , Shad only looks in the wrong places I live in Hungary an European Country and recurve bows are realy popular here. Many Hungarians say that Recurve bows are an important part of our histrory and many try to promote it. Also in Hungarian reenactments , mediveal festivals and also in Castles you can see many recurve bows its a realy important part of our history
Given that the longbow was predominantly a British thing (the idea of which was taken from the Welsh after Wales was conquered by England), the concept of the longbow as an ubiquitous medieval bow is a very Anglophilic thing.
Longbows are used across Europe and across Eurasia. There are remains of ice age longbows found in the Alps, and longbows were historically used in South Asia (eg. India) and southern China too.
@@Intranetusa Sure, for hunting. Not generally for war. I challenge you to find me one historical army outside of the English that used the longbow as their typical bow.
I've only recently become aware that the military history of Eastern Europe is significantly neglected in the English-speaking world. There's a tendency for people in British-influenced nations to believe Europe begins at Germany. It's not deliberate -- it's just an effect of language and culture. I'm interested in cavalry tactics and equipment and you can't really understand the evolution of cavalry without studying the armies of Poland, Hungary, and other points east.
@@KeyserSoze23 Same for Central Europe, since it is actually a Hunnic/Hungarian Invention, both Chinese and Romans got it after they were defeated by the Huns. An authentic recurve bow from Hungary is made from Keratin(Horn), Sinew with structural elements of yew and then wrapped in leather. There are vast amount of information about it both pre 800 and after in Hungarian, I'm sure most of it is Translated
HECK NO....THE XIONGNU NU HAS BEEN USING IT SINCE BEFORE THE HUNS. XIONGNU NU WERE A CONFEDERATION OF TURKIC TRIBES IN WESTERN MONGOLIA NOW. HUNGARIAN ALSO HAVE TURKIC BLOOD SO...THAT'S EXPLAINED IT :p@@Loki-qo2kb
@@Loki-qo2kb Nope. The bow is older than the Huns. Perhaps, the scythians or possibly even older. We have examples of the recurve bow much before the Huns. The scythians sculptures with their bows. The coins(1st century)of cheras in the deep south of India also had recurve bows.
Interesting to think about how only Odysseus could string and fire his bow. Assuming his bow was a palintonos, it may well have been a composite recurve bow. If he were even marginally larger and stronger than others of his era and culture, it's easy to see why Homer used it as a plot device. (Or perhaps Odysseus simply knew how to string the bow properly, if it was a type the locals were not familiar with.) Homer was supposedly blind, yet knew just how powerful you had to be in order to string and fire a bow. Seeing poor Shad nearly pop a blood vessel really brings it home.
The Iliad/Odyssey is surprisingly accurate in its depiction of the late Bronze age period right before the collapse. Even mentioning weapons and armor that were from said period.
I never got the idea that Odysseus was unusually large, and his bow is the only reference I recall to him being stronger than normal. But given the Greek penchant for spear, shield, and sword, if he was an archer trained from the cradle it would give him a huge advantage over everyone else he knew. But this also reminds me of a Viking saga where a warrior with a mighty longbow stood off an assault by himself to protect the king, then his string broke. The king offered his own bow, and the man said it was much too weak.
Use of a bow is the only weapon that changes the physiology of the dedicated user. It actually changes your muscles, tendons and bones to the point that archaeologists can identify an Archer by their skeleton alone. So if Odysseus was a dedicated lifelong Archer and had a custom war bow it could easily be a 200 plus pound bow that almost nobody could string much less shoot.
Throughout much of history, archers were either professional soldiers or outright martial nobility. As such, archers were usually regarded highly in the ancient world, from the bronze age all the way until their replacement by gunpowder weapons, and all around the world too from the americas to east asia and everywhere in between.
I’ve always used the term “horse bow” when referring to Mongolian short bows specifically. And I thought that were called that because the string wrapped up the siyah was made from horse hair. I have no idea where I got this information in the past but now looking into it I have found nothing to confirm any of that 😂 good video learned a lot
think horsehair has been used in pillows and blankets in the past. came to mined when i heard horsebow. can also be used in violin bows, for the bards i guess.
Hey Shad, as an engineer, I have to correct something. I absolutely agree that the poundage is a much better measure for the "power" of a bow, than for example it's length or material, like you already say. But the poundage still is quite a bad measure for the power, let me give you two simple examples. First let's compare your 100lb longbow against a 100lb crossbow with typical dimensions. At first glance we could say equal poundage equal power. But since this crossbow has less range, less damage potential, produces less energy and probably less momentum, this would be a stupid statement. This difference can be easily explained by their draw lengths. So I propose to use a better definition of power, the damage potential would be perfect, but it's hardly measurable, but still much better measures than poundage would be power and momentum. Let's use power, it's more practical, since it's mostly independent of arrow weight. Now with the second example I want to introduce something else. So imagine a comparison between again your 100lb longbow and this time a well made 100lb modern compound bow. This time both bows have about the same draw length so the difference in power can't come from the draw length. But which bow is more powerful, i.e. which one delivers greater energy? In this case it's easy to say, the compound bow is the winner. This can be explained by their "draw force curve". Modern compound bows are optimized in a way that they reach their maximum poundage right away, after a few inches, and hold it at a constant level until right before the bow is fully drawn. Then the poundage drops drastically. A longbow on the other hand has about a linear increase of force over draw distance. If we "integrate" (some advanced form of summation, little math is needed) both these curves, we calculate the stored energy. By the argumentation it's shown, that the compound bow stores a much higher energy. Then there's also the topic of efficiency which I don't want to touch here. I assume the recurve and the longbow also have quite different draw force curves, but it's difficult to say which one's better. I recommend to look up "draw force curve" and at everybody, feel free to ask if something is unclear or you disagree in something. Thanks for reading and an upvote might help, that Shad actually sees this comment!
There actually is a definite answer to which has the superior draw force curve, or rather, power delivery curve. Recurve bows, especially those with a severe recurve, maintain higher power delivery for longer than a simple longbow but not as long as a compound bow. The recurve ends up acting similarly to the pulleys on a compound bow but typically aren't quite as effective.
Well that seems to be a good scientific explanation for what I would feel when shooting a composite recurve compared to a longbow, and also watching how the arrows left the bow. Thanks
well, dang... I really have to skim over comments before writing my own. The only thing I have to add is Newton's third law. The lighter the bow, the more force you have to receive by yourself, instead of it being absorbed by the limbs and considering how many soft connections the human body has I'd wager the efficiency suffers at least a little bit. But I'm not entirely sure if this wouldn't be totally negated by proper technique. And even if it isn't I can't really tell if those considerations are worth the fuss. The effect might be so negligible as to be virtually nonexistent. Mind you, I never held a bow in my life, let alone shot it... so, I'm mostly talking out of my back side. Which, admittedly, has somewhat of a grip on dynamics...
Wow! Never thought about the compound bow’s increased power storage! You made SEVERAL good points, but that one was a huge revelation for me. Thanks for sharing your knowledge - great addendum to Shad’s video!
Straight limbed bow has an optimal draw length. Shorter the bow=shorter draw length. Not because string may come off (you could just change nock design to prevent this) but Pull it past optimum and the force is pulling more along the length of the limb (called stacking) rather than bending it and storing more energy. Recurves don’t have this problem as it maintains an angle at the end of the limb that even at longer draw lengths that still converts force from the draw to bending the limb hence shorter recurves.
Dude i remember reading the Ranger's Apprentice series as a kid and oh my god, I was obsessed with European recurve bows and honestly still have a lot of interest in them, than you for making such a well-rounded, accurate and historical video to encompass possibly one of my favourite bows :)
And I think Shad hit the nail on the head when he said that it's less expensive and complicated to make a longbow of high draw weight then a short composite bow. The cost of producing large amounts of longbows is probably part of their appeal in medieval combat as opposed to composite short bows or crossbows. Many medieval crossbow men were mercenaries they're professional soldiers they bought their own kit. The bow was more of a primary weapon in many Asian horse cultures, thus there more likely to have a personal more costly; added to this is the fact that a short bows easier to shoot in multiple directions on horseback.
There is a reason why nomads could make composite bows more easily: the CATTLE. You see, when you make good composite bow, you need glue (could be made from bones), with which you secure horn (or bone) parts on the ends, then glue thin horn plate on the back of the bow and tendons (or rough leather) on the front. The horn and the tendons as a result work like a spring to speed up bow shoulders. Civilization that is not nomads simply cannot afford to spare so much cow parts.
@@dilen754 In Europe we composite bows did exist; especially on crossbows. From what I've read traditional composite bows can takes months to cure once assembled & glued. So it seems to me there needs to be somebody who stays put to make the bows, because traveling with bows while they cure would interfere with the curing process. I also think that stationary civilizations would certainly have access to animal parts such as cows to make those into if they so chose. Granted cows in the Middle ages were more often valued for their milk than meat, but economics drives societies. If a big need for cow parts to make bows were there the $ to slaughter cows for parts would be there too. BUT it is far cheaper & less time consuming to manufacture large numbers of military bows from a natural composite wood, like yew.
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 yes, the are composite bows, but they are quite costly. You can look up for the crossbow price. The curing process in that regard is long, but not costly per see. There is as well a misconception that nomads would be always moving, no matter the place and season, that is not right: for example, they can stay quite put in winter. Yes, the economics drive societies... And that is precisely why there was quite a shortage of cattle - it is simply not cost effective when you need to feed a large city. Cattle took a lot of place, it is hard to protect etc. Of course there are some, but not nearly as much as in steppes. So Europe naturally (there I am completely agree with you) preferred simple variant, then make drastic economic efforts for dubious results.
@@dilen754 yes composite bows are expensive regardless of area they were from; even amongst nomads. If curing can take 6-9 months & winter is 3-4 months then they still need someone staying put. Cattle we're not in short supply but they were used more for milk than me because you can have a cow make milk throughout the years to make products like cheese which can be stored for many months as opposed to slaughtering a cow which you can only eat once it's simple economics. But if the need for composite bows were big enough then the market for Bose would make raising cattle for slaughter to make bows profitable and therefore it would have been done. I don't think the results for composite bows in Europe for dubious but when you're equipping a large army economics plays a role in if you can make a serviceable bow I have less out of less expensive materials more quickly... Well it only makes sense to go that roughy. Often crossbow men were mercenaries so they paid for their own equipment so to have more expensive equipment is more on the individual than the person hiring them. But it's not just crossbows that were composite they were composite bows in Europe. Many Asiatic nomadic cultures
@@dilen754 Composite bows were costly weather made in Europe or by nomads. Many nomadic asiatic cultures were horse cultures; as such horsemanship was integrated into their society. Quick archery attacks from horseback make more sense than trying to field infantry based armies. A horse born archer needs lightweight armor primarily designed to deflect arrows, and although often made from metal it could be made from material like horn or hardened leather. Horn & leather based armors are cheaper than fully metal armors. But in a society where you are raising in slaughtering animals the materials are also very readily available. I don't imagine many nomads were mining for iron ore, so they would have had to trade for it rather than get the supplies to make their armors from within their own groups. Where European knights may prize swords and put a lot of their income into a sword even though a sword wasn't a primary weapon. Asiatic archers would invest money into bows as bows were often their primary weapon. As far as curing... if nomads camp for winter and winter last three to four months but curing a bow can take anywhere from six months to a year this still doesn't solve the problem of needing someone to do the curing in a set location. When traveling weather can cause all sorts of problems especially with natural glues. There was never a shortage of cattle in Europe of cattle as far as I'm aware. But cattle were primarily raised for dairy reasons. Products like cheese can store for several months and carry you through a hard winter whereas slaughtering a cow for meat you can only do once. I still feel if the economics were such that the composite bow were needed & no good alternative was available then the economics of bow making would have caused people to raise cattle for the necessary parts to make bows. But as a natural laminates like yew can make a great bow which is both quicker and less expensive to manufacture than a composite bow. As such there was no great drive to produce in mass composite bows in Europe. We know that composite bows did exist in Europe so we can conclude that there were people willing to pay the extra cost for whatever reason. I don't think the results were dubious, I think they were more expensive and therefore not used when equipping armies. But if somebody were a noble who went hunting or a mercenary who bought their own equipment they might opt for the advantages of a composite bow. BTW please don't think I'm trying to attack you. I was a philosophy major in college & enjoy debating. I respect you & your opinions, I'm just not convinced as of now. That being said I fully admit I could be wrong & you could be correct. I'm enjoying this debate!
Yeah! So here’s another penny in the box in the form of this comment :) @RollerJumps Shad has a video on his plot of land and also watch his videos on castles he designed they re amazing.
I'm getting flashbacks to my childhood and only now I recall how much correct information the elder folk told me about archery and bows when I was a kid. There must've been a respected teacher who was deeply enthusiastic about archery and the knowledge has spread and trickled down to later generations.
The 'horsebow' title is particularly misleading in implying that shorter bows are the only appropriate bows for horseback usage, when not only was every type of bow used from horseback, but the famously-tall Japanese yumi bow was likely designed actively for horseback use. All cultures aim to make the best bows their materials allow. The Europeans, with excellent access to strong, flexible woods, tended towards a mix of thicker and longer limbs as that is the cheapest way to make strong bows - the longbow's major benefit is it is very cheap to make for its power. Native Americans and most Finno-Ugric tribes had harder and less-flexible wood so made flatbows, which flex more evenly and are better for their woods - and when access to imported yew allowed them to make the cheaper, easier longbow they quickly took over. The Japanese made use of bamboo by using a bamboo-and-wood composite, which had to be made more powerful mostly by getting longer, and using technical refinements to make the bow taller while keeping the grip point at comfortable height. The Mongols and many other groups for that matter, had poor access to good timbers and a surplus of horn and glue, so developed complex techniques for making very powerful bows by lamination - the drawback was that these took skilled crafters a lot of time, and so were expensive. They also took more careful maintenance, but given their expense if you go to the trouble of buying one you will certainly care for it well. Categorising bows by length is unhelpful, when the length of bows seems mostly to just be an outcome of the manufacturing technique.
Yes but if you look at the Yumi bow it has a very long top limb and a very short bottom limb as much as all bows were used on horse back recurves were preferred. Above them was crossbows not the windless however but the short crossbow. Long bows were much harder to draw on horse back.
Something I'm trying to figure out now is if a long bow and a short bow can be similarly powerful by being made at equal poundage, why would anyone make or use a long bow over a short bow?
@@NegatveSpace draw length a 25 lob long bow a 25 lb draw recurve and a 25 lb draw crossbow will all have different maximum distance the crossbow will be shorter the recurve will be longer than the crossbow but shorter than the long bow even though they all have the same pound draw.
I always thought that Medieval recurve bows were more prominent than longbows. Mostly because, reportedly, the English were the only ones to widely use longbows.
Yea well everybody were using the new big thing - the crossbow. And as the crossbow used the same horn and sinew technology (for the most part) so you could indeed say recurves/composite bows were more prominent in a way..
This one of those cases that Shad wasn't aware of something, and largely ignored it, therefore he assumes that the lack of awareness was common. It's like his whole longbow, shortbow, horse-bow thing. I've never seen Recurve Warbows depicted as weaker than longbows, I've never seen it assumed they werent used in Europe. Composite recurves are a design optimized for use on horseback, doesn't mean thats it's only use, or that other bows don't work on horseback. He's also conflating reflex bows and recurve bows.
@@Dalfinnr I said what I did knowing about and ignoring crossbows. I've heard it said that Agincourt was not just a major victory for the English Longbowmen but also a victory for the longbow over the shortbow and crossbow mix that the French had their archers equipped with. With this comes the claim that the longbow was superior to the shortbow in terms of capabilities and that the French didn't have anything that could compete with the superior longbow which contributed to the victory at Agincourt. Thus the D&D thing of the longbow being superior to the shortbow looks to be based upon nonsense that has been claimed through history.
@@rainsilent Considering the french did not make use of their crossbowmen at Agincourt it doesn't seem fair to the crossbowmen.. But yes I agree with you 100%. The style of bow is not important but rather the power/draw-weight.
Liked how you commented on D&D bows. And after I watched this video I made my own Homebrew version for Bows in my D&D campaigns, hunting bow in simple weapons, and war Bows for Marshall weapons, and left it to my players whether it was long or short or recurved.
Sounds like the way they should handle bows in D&D is "Poundage" and "Style". Higher Poundage, higher price, but also higher power, with an actual STR requirement to usage (akin to armor). Standard versus Recurve, cheaper versus expensive, obvious versus concealable.
In DnD one solution could be to 'rename' the shortbow and longbow to a light and heavy bow. That would work for the editions I'm aware of. Different damage, potentially different weapon proficiency.
The key problem with a STR requirement on bows would introduce the problem Monks have. That is - needing three or more high stats to just be average compared to other classes. I don't disagree from a "simulator" aspect, but there would be almost no reason to play anything other than a fighter as a physical combat class. For practical D&D games, I would just negate the strength requirement on bows and focus on the idea that accuracy and critical rate are the focus of the class leveling/damage scaling. That with arrow combinations. As a DM, I would probably allow for some creative use of arrows and magic/enchantment etc. Tying thunder stones to arrows and loosing them would be an amusing strategy. Anyway - the bows themselves I would class according to pull and archetype. The pull class would come with higher damage potential or even reduced critical threat range (and critical damage done), whereas each pull class would count as something of a feat for weapon specialization. Any untrained character could pull a hunting bow, the rogue or ranger start at being able to pull a low grade warbow (large game hunting, basically). Each additional higher class must be taken in sequence and count as a feat (I may include a bonus feat or two if I feel it necessary on the leveling pathway - depends on the group and the campaign tone - are we building herculean legends or is this a story of the misfits who saved christmas by the skin of their teeth and a happy accident or two? ). Heavier bows could be drawn at lower strength at a loss of bonuses to damage and crit - IE - you can still pick up and use a bow too heavy for you as a better than nothing. Maybe some sort of strength and dexterity check could be performed in lieu of specific weapon training - so the hulk of the group could still pick up the warbow and fire it untrained, at the risk of failing checks. Granted, I am talking mostly in 3.5, here... I have no idea what 5 looks like.
Not going to lie Shad, couple months ago I beng watch your archery videos. After you opened my eyes to how the power of bows work, I created new rules for my bows for D&D. Made three categories, hunting bows, war bows, and great bows (200 lb). Love the changes that you inspired me to fix and thank you for the amazing work you do. Also I made Strength requirements for the bows.
You don't need that great of strength.if you can pick up 200lbs. You can pull it. Any bow that need training would be a warbow. Even then your local lumber jack could pull it easy. Us fat slops in the real world would find it a challenge. But a world where you live like medieval But with dragons.
@Luke Rogers, you may be better served by making a home brew rule that assigns a pull strength capability to strength scores i.e.: 16 = 100lbs, 17 = 150lbs, 18 = 200lbs. Good luck, may all your roles be crits!
Actually I Incorporated it as so, hunting bows 1d6 dmg with no strength requirement. War bows 1d8 dmg with strength requirement of 13. Great bows 1d10 with strength requirement of 16. Figured I would set it up to basic D&D strength requirements, but been debating doing 14 and 18 for strength check. Bow models do matter at the moment for usage but debating getting rid of this part.
@@lukerogers9348 I recall in one campaign when the archer rolled a 1 and had his elven bow snap in half! That was the most demoralized player I’d ever seen. Crits work both ways!
This fancy mix of quiver and holster for bow is called "sajdak" or "ŁUBIE" (in Poland). Somtimes build only as holster for bow, somtimes had integrated quiver. Used mainly to protectc composite bow from elements and/or for decoration. Used mostly on terrains of EAST EUROPE. Someone carying "sajdak" alweys caried sword or saber on the oposite side. Depending if there was peace, or war time, sides of carying were switched. PS. It can by caried on the back like back quiver - but it may by a little awkward.
Coming here from your Ranger video. I think we have finalized the Ranger loadout: falchion and these bows. Excellent portable combination. Perfect for the wilderness. You can even carry the bow in a case.
I wasn't surprised that they were used in medieval times, but I didn't expect them to be that common or more efficient than longbows (or just as strong, but that misconception was cleared in a video before). Thinking about it, with the whole construction of the recurve it shouldn't be surprising that it's more efficient. Also I don't think that you will forget your gloves again anytime soon
@@Adierit Much like how not every foot soldier would be able to afford brand new plate armor, I'd imagine a shortbow like this one would be far more expensive and, thus, more likely to be in the hands of someone wealthier.
3:20 : Bows held in quivers was pretty common in East Asia (lots of historic evidence there), so I am not surprised to see this as well in the Europe/Mediterranean area.
@@GaborSzabo747 I remember doing role playing and when learning about the szlachta etc. or even earlier and recurve/reflex bows were everywhere in our minds, to the point I always prefered them even in games such as mount and blade. But you are right the world is oddly... western europe centrific... Polak węgier dwa bratanki, i do szabli i do szklanki!
I was surpised Shad didn't know about the bow quivers. If you were to look at any Orthodox church art featuring bows, you'll find a lot of bow quivers shown.
Maybe get in contact with Kassai Lajos, he dedicated his whole life to archery, especially recurve bows, and also the hungarian/hunnic culture. This man lives, breathes, and bleeds archery. He mainly does it from horseback, because this is how the huns traditionally did it, but he has a really great amount of knowledge about traditional recurve bows and how they were used in fighting and hunting
@@treborschafer3945 Both type of bow require a lot of strength but it comes from the back muscles not from the arms(as many people seems to think so) so they would just have stronger muscles on their shoulder blades.
well the composite bow did originate from asia (cental asian steppes) and the oldest one that was found is from 600 b.c. from the scythians. later as the scythians spread into eastern europe and deeper into asia their neighbours (who they often invaded) started to adopt them too.
Shad love you but you made a mistake around 28:30 by saying a lighter bow is easier to hold steady and therefore more accurate. Which is untrue in fact the opposite is true we literally put additional weights on bows to make them easier to hold steady. Granted those are modern bows. But the concept of a heavier bow being less accurate is wrong. In general it is easier to be more accurate with a heavier bow. edit: i forgot to say the reason why it is that way. when you pull back your bow your arm holding the bow moves right left up down because your body gets compressed and you push against it. when the bow is heavier it pulls down more (gravity) but a heavier object is harder to move so left right and up are easier to control. you can test it out your self tape a laser to your bow and point it at a wall and pull it back. then do the same but with an additional weight taped to the bow. when you observe the laser it will move less with weights. thanks for reading my gibberish who ever got to the end
I'd like to point out that Mongols used a very similar style bow while on horseback. So did the "sipahi" who were light cavalry in the Ottoman Empire. So the "horsebow" probably coming from those examples. Shad: talking about how the tip of the bow was europian. Also Shad: shows pictures of bow tips very similar to hungarian bow tips...
And the Magyars were originally horse archers from the central Asian steppe. The recurve/composite bow as we know it is absolutely Asian in origin. Just because the Romans and Medieval Europeans used it doesn't mean it's not Asian in origin
@@rohunagarwal6497 I mean technically we could argue about the assiriran and scytian bows origin since they show up in roman and medivevil sources some of them originating from Byzantine but even those sources most likely are after the huns coming to Rome or from the roman expansion where the romans went toward the Karpatian Basin. Also the Bizantian empire was hiring different tribes of horse archers since they were good enough to give trouble to the empire. so yeah
Neat video! Just finished the book "Shadow of the Conquerer" and was very pleased by the story, the magic, the setting, and the attention to details in the world. Good read!
As a DM, my takeaway is to make 4 categories of bows for my players: Training bow: 1d4 piercing damage Light bow: 1d6 piercing damage Warbow: 1d8 piercing damage Heavy warbow: 1d10 piercing damage, but uses the strength stat, not dex. With recurve and longbow options for both. Too bad nobody plays ranger in 5e...
Not even after Tasha's? Because Rangers seem pretty cool now. I have this idea for a dhampir Swarmkeeper Ranger whose swarm is either bats or just ominous shadows floating around him. I was thinking of going melee focused though, using the Druidic Warrior fighting style to grab Shillelagh so I can focus on WIS.
If you care about balance, this system is a super buff to strength builds. Strength builds are usually better than dexterity ones because of higher base damage and access to heavy armor, but they also struggle with range. This system not only takes that weakness away, it makes them superior to dexterity builds on doing that as well. I'm also not 100% sure, but I suspect that system would also allow barbarians to shoot while raging, which is super huge for them. Of course, balance isn't everything but in case you or your players care about it.
Funnily enough Skyrim actually was pretty acurate with their bows. having a recurv bow be better than a long bow. Even the 2 best bows in Skyrim where: 1 recurv and a short bow. Auriel's bow being a short recurv bow. And the nightingale bow being a long recurved bow. Which is kinda pretty funny because skyrim isn't the most hystorical acurate game ever made.
@@neofd3223 to each their own, but I'm just offering the most likely explanation for why the game that gives vikings horned helmets has recurve bows be the best bows.
Don't pull the string, push the staff. I'm like super fit, Judoka, strong back and shoulders, but can only pull the 60-65# category, the Krimean Tartar bow I took to tournaments was only 42# and I changed to a 33# Scythian bow for recreational shooting(also have one with 24#). A few days ago, I found a quote from an English king. His father taught him how to push his whole weight into the bow, allowing him to use heavier and heavier ones. I tried this, and man, this feels like cheating! The strain on the finger joints is the same, and with my Ehler-Danlos-syndrome, I probably need a tab or glove, but drawing my heavier bows is really easy now. For the first time, I think 100#+ is possible for me. But budget short bows(I shoot Flagella Dei) end at 50# or 60#, so I guess I'll just stay in that range.
Yeah, I think that "forgot/forgotten" is not the best choice of words for this one. It's definitely not as popular as the longbow, but certainly not forgotten.
In regard to composite bows in wetter climates, From "War Bows" by Mike Loades, "There is a common misconception that composite bows were not popular in Western Europe because their performance would have been too adversely affected by the damp climate. However, when properly sealed, they thrived not only in the considerably wetter climates of Asia; composite bows, in the form of the bows for crossbows, proliferated throughout Europe." Apparently, at the time of writing he was also under the impression there weren't many recurves/composites (other than crossbows) in Europe. In other parts of the book he mentions that one of the final steps in building these types of bows was to apply some type of water resistant/proof coating, like a lacquer or something. There is further treatment that indicates the composite bow would need care and attention when dealing with temperature extremes, such as sleeping with your bow to keep it warm, actually manipulating it in ways, like bow massage, to combat any torsional changes or other warping, etc. It seems the glues involved required long durations to set, so the composite bows staves would take much longer to build, 2 years by Loades' estimation. This would make them more expensive, and given the meticulous care required, perhaps demanded a more professional class of fighter? A typical self longbow, on the other hand, could be made in a year or less, most of which is simply the curing of the wood. Could it be that the longbow was more convenient for mass mobilizations of the civilian population on account of the bow holding its shape in storage, having less maintenance needs, and being cheaper/quicker to produce?
The name Byzantine arrives well after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans with the first usage in 1555 and not really adopted popularly until the 1800s. It was not a contemporary name used for the Eastern Roman empire who always just called themselves the Roman empire and was known as such to everyone else apart from some in the west who called them the Empire of the Greeks because of disputes over claiming that the HRE was the real Roman successor.
Yep. The Roman Empire never renamed themselves as the Byzantine Empire and never changed the name of their capitol to Byzantium. These are ahistorical influences from post 1453 German scholars in the Holy Roman Empire who sought to distance the meaning of Rome away from the Roman Empire after its final collapse. Modern historians use the term to distinguish between antiquity and post antiquity Rome and, because much of modern history has its origins in German influenced universities from after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Could it be possible that the Romans adopted the recurve through interactions with the Scythians or Parthians? The Romans were really big on adopting superior tech from their enemies, after all. As for "Medieval" recurves, I'd say Huns, since the G*rms were under Attila's thumb for quite awhile.
Hey Shad! A question to you about DUNE as to an expert: If a person is used to fighting in a shield, against opponents who also utilize shields, where they do not mind fast cuts and thrusts (which will be deadly in shield-less fight), wouldn't they be rubbish in shield-less fights? as they have been training whole their lives to not mind this thrusts and cuts, when it will be the paramount danger fighting "naked"? Spoilers below: In Dune we see Paul defeating one of the Fremen quite easily ("toying" even with him as he doesn't want to kill him) after crossing an alien planet, under huge stress and lack of food and water, in desert he defeats elite fighter, with a bone knife which is also new for him (before he had metal blades). Seems like a stretch to me.
I think it's the difference of being trained at all. That's the point in the whole book: Fremen were amazing fighters, but only by natural selection. What Paul adds to them is modern training. And so he made them more powerful. Plus: Paul himself was trained as a duelist. 1vs1
read the book. Paul was good at defending but realized that he couldn't win due to his shield training. He only won after adjusting his offensive style.
Not just dungeons and dragons, in every game I've ever played that has both longbows and shortbows, the shortbow is weaker and has less range than the long bow.
I love how you're comparing the "myths" rpg and tactical games have imposed upon history. One of my major annoyances is the fact that most games etc tend to put dexterity as a major stat for archers. Whilst in fact to even draw the bow (arguably the most important step in attempting to fire an arrow) you need quite an amount of strength, especially with (war)bows of a higher poundage. Especially when having to do it repeatedly. And on the other hand one can even argue that dexterity is at least as important (if not more) as strength for a warrior in order to even use weapons effectively in a fight. Because what good is being able to lift a weapon if you can't handle it properly and quick enough to match your opponent.
For a bow, it would probably make sense to say that strength limits the power of the bow you can use, while dexterity affects your aim. You can probably say the same about melee weapons, but there strength would also affect power to some degree. Probably more for tip-heavy weapons, and less for swords. But either way, strength requirements would be higher for bows than probably any other weapon (assuming war bows, not hunting bows).
even before that period... the ancient Greek goddess of hunting Artemis [you may know her by the name the Romans used "'Diana'' ] is often depicted holding this type of bow... so yea!... it's old European... the reason the long bow overshadows it is simplicity... easy for everyone to make one and train for war while feeding his family...
Hey Shad, how are your health problems? I remember you saying you couldn’t strain yourself much. It looks like you’re getting better so I’m happy for that. Great video and I hope you continue to do well.
He's lost a fair amount of weight, it's visible in his face if you compare this video to a video from two years ago. He also said in his videos that he had surgery to alleviate his obstructive sleep apnea and now he can get a solid night of sleep and good sleep does wonders for health.
The "prominence" of the longbow is purely an anglo-centric view of history. Britain made the longbow legendary but people forget that the Huns, Turks, Hungarians, and Mongolians were absolutely devastating with recurve bows.
I would agree with you on most of those, but I really don't think people "forget" about Mongolian archers. They are extremely well covered by historians.
I agree. I don’t want to be rude but honestly as a Hungarian person I think straight (mostly english) longbows are just pieces of wood compared to curved reflex bows. I am not talking about strength, just wanted to mention the level of technology and specialism.
I really think, that the Longbow is especially famous in england and became famous in alot of english speaking countries, since a lot of english historians only look at english history, but kinda sell it as european history. Maybe its also due to the youtubers that make videos about it and the larp and co. communities, that the idea of the longbow being THE medieval bow came to be, at least in Shads head. I myself didnt even know of the longbow as a non islanders bow until not too long ago. As a kid, that loved history, I mainly knew about the recuve/composite bows and the straight bows and the weaker decurve bows, that were mainly used as hunting bows. So for me the longbow was kind of the forgotten medieval bow, while the recurve bow was the primary medieval bow. And I think its similar for alot of people that are from middle/eastern/south-eastern europe and not from england, Ireland and france, or some of the english colonies that had no real medieval history, aside the natives history, like the us and austrailia. But all in all, great video. 👍
In eastern europe they are just called, bow. That's it, it is and always was the bow by default. And you are right they were both used on foot and on horseback as well.
There are a bunch of us in Oregon who use a thumb draw, and we have a running debate about what we should properly call the "Horse Bows" that we use. Horse bow is a misnomer, because many of them can't properly be used from horseback (Manchu bows can be almost as tall as longbow), but "Asian recurve" doesn't fit either, because they weren't used exclusively in Asia. "Recurve" just conjures up images of Fred Bear bows in the modern mind, and "short bow" is a general catchall term for any bow that isn't within a few inches of the user's height. "Saddle bow" has the same problem as horse bow. Nine times out of ten, we just sidestep the problem by referring to each bow by it's specific type (ex. last night I was using a Turkish bow), but sometimes we find ourselves in a situation wherein we just need to come up with some kind of categorical name that the average layperson will immediately recognize. The best that we've been able to come up with is "composite Asiatic recurve," but that's a heck of a mouthful. One day, someone will come up with or discover the perfect name, but until that day comes, know that many people share your frustration.
Yeah I understand it drives me crazy trying to give them a proper label and all I can suggest is possibly calling them ARC Bows which is just an aberration of your saying of Composite Asiatic Recurve (I changed the words around mainly for it to have a better ring to it) But besides that I can't wait for it to getter a proper name that won't be a misnomer
@@GM-os6fo there are depictions of recurve bows in Ancient Greece art. Korean traditional bow is recurved too, and used by infantry. China also has recurve bows used by infantry. Persia as well. they are most common in the steppes (Huns, Turks, Magyar...), but not exclusive to them.
Great video, Shad, and loved how many West European Medieval primary sources/images you included in the video to show how widespread their use was. As to why these more expensive and sophisticated bows weren't more common in the British Isles compared to the long/self bow, was probably due to how much cheaper and easier to make the latter type were, and therefore much easier for even the poorest peasants to acquire, and learn to shoot from childhood. In the case of serious reenactment/living history applications, virtually all of the replicas on the market today, (including your short recurve bow presented here), is that the fiberglass composite ones are too flat/thin to resemble all of the surviving original examples, or those depicted in contemporary Medieval art I am familiar with. They all appear thicker and have more of a "D" profile just as we see in all wood, self bows, probably because modern laminates like fiberglass are stronger than the original horn, and therefore thinner. I have several short recurve bows much like yours, which I acquired in Hungary for our Roman living history group, but made them look more authentic by thickening them with flexible cork to the appearance of an 300 plus year old Moghul Indian recurve bow made with real horn and sinew. As many of these were covered in leather or parchment, this will hide the cork or other flexible material used to beef up the fiberglass bow to an authentic appearance. The fact that the preponderance of Medieval reenactors depicting bowmen own longbows may not so much be due to their ignorance of the widespread use of short recurve bows in Medieval times, but simply due to their desire to depict English longbowmen, and it being far easier to acquire an all wooden, classic "longbow" than a realistic replica of a Medieval recurve bow. As nice as your 110 pound recurve bow is, as soon as I saw it in this presentation, that judging by its appearance, and my owning several very much like it, I was sure it had to be a fiberglass one before you said it was.
Hungarian Style Recurves are fairly available too. I shoot a 60# and my brother has a 75# bow, both are Hungarian style. The Hungarian style is very similar to what you have there, the ends are pointy on ours, but the functional elements are shaped very similar to your bow. Also, I'm glad that your covering this. Great content, keep going. I would love to see you cover some of the different types of short bows. There are small differences in their construction, but they can have pretty large effects on how they shoot. A bow like yours will have a smooth release, but something like the Mongolian Style has bridges which cause them to shoot differently. You use them the same way, but the differences are interesting.
My god, thanks for this video and the Historical Archery shout out, i was creating my RPG system and got stuck in the ranged combat section with bows and other stuff, this video helped me a LOT!
And I am thankful for his research. His work makes valuable information accessible to the masses. He creates opportunities to free people from the vile grasp of ignorance.
I run WFRP, in that ranged weapons have an "Effective Strength" in a similar range to the strength of the characters. For me it makes sense that if a character purchases a bow, they would get the maximum strength they cpuld handle without a serious penalty to accuracy, so a S3 character would buy an ES3 bow, an S2 gets an ES2. If an S4 character uses an ES3 bow, it remains at ES3, but an S3 character using an ES4 bow would get a -20 nerf to accuracy and couldn't even use an ES5 bow and so on. I avoid dealing with the details of poundage exactly because it has no mechanical benefit and for range I just abstract the games rules for short/normal/longbow into Str Ranges. I leave Elf Bows alone for reasons of assuming they have powerful bows that can be used by any normal Elf, because they are magical creatures and slings get just a modified ES to whatever Str the character is.
Warhammer is pretty intuitive, but that is basically D&D 3rd ed's composite bow rules, which you could reskin as 'longbow x or y'. If I were making my own game system, I'd probably just have an 'archery skill' which determines what sort of bow the character can shoot. The muscles an archer uses aren't the same as those used to lift, wrestle, punch, etc. (and each of those are different muscles!), so this would seem a reasonable enough abstraction to me.
This topic is realy close to my heart. I wanna do traditional medieval european archery, but i do not like english long bow...so...I was searching about this topic by myself, because nobody was able to help me find something about short bows in medieval europe. And then a fell in love with hungarian bows. Yes i know that Huns and Mayars were asian tribes, but Hungarians in medieval times still used this type of bow and man, what a great bow it is. I totaly agree that short bows have its place in medieval european archery.
Magyars are just as Asian as Germans, most current Europeans were the vassals the Huns who are the ancestors of the Magyars, some exceptions are the Celts, who were here before, but the others were settled when Attila defeated Rome and he needed someone to take care of the conquered lands.
Hungarian here, I'm actually surprised that these bows are considered lost in medieval reenactment. They're absolutely integral to our culture -- now that might just be because one of the very few successful times in Hungarian history was when our ancestors kicked most of Europe's ass with these, luring the enemy in on horseback and then shooting backwards at them, but with those legends around, anyone doing any form of historical archery here pretty much defaults to recurve bows. And that was a bit before 1000 AD, with a large chunk of the medieval period still ahead, I'd be very surprised if these bows just completely vanished for the next five centuries.
Possibly it's because Shad lives in Australia, i.e. part of the English speaking world. Unless we specifically go digging for information, all we ever hear in popular culture and popular history shows/books etc here is something along the lines of "English/Welsh Longbow iz da bestest!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!11!!!" And to be fair, the vast majority of people aren't historians and don't have the time, knowledge or motivation to even consider challenging this belief.
I think that really goes to show how much of a role culture plays. In more western European especially English-speaking cultures, the decurve longbow is much more prominent due to the effects of the English longbow and how it has permeated media and historical accounts,
That is because the nations west of Hungary and Poland tend to have the most projection power as to what most people view as history, particularly England and France and America. I do know that it is a fairly well know weapon among Polish Hussar reenactors as even after guns were adopted the bow was still seen as a fashion accessory.
it's bizarre that this has to be a topic. im not even into d&d & not a history buff (or even an archer!) but the idea that a recurve is "forgotten," & the benefits/differences/where it was geographically used historically isn't common knowledge has me flabbergasted. i've never talked to anyone about bows that hasn't known all this since they were like 8 🤷♀️
I also think that longbow has a psychological factor as well, because people can rationalize all they want even nowadays with smaller but more efficient weapons versus larger show-offs. The fact that a longbow is a HUGE weapon, and a line of longbowmen is truly a more intimidating sight than the smaller recurves, even if statistically they might be the exact opposites in their performance! Psychology is a strong weapon, often the strongest!
I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, if your enemy is afraid of you, they're more likely to retreat. However, if you're enemy underestimates you, then they are more likely to make a potentially war ending mistake.
"H-h-h-have you seen how much wood is in that m-m-m-mans hand...? Look how *thick and long it is....."* Innuendos aside, I think you're going a bit far on that. At most combat ranges, in battle conditions, you're probably not even going to be able to tell the difference between a bunch of guys carrying longbows and a bunch of guys carrying shorter bows. I feel like your logic could also be applied to comparing longbows and crossbows, and I'm confident in saying that it doesn't check out for that comparison
@@grognakthedestroyerattorne3211 Be careful with that assumption. My understanding is that there's actually a lot of uncertainty on how archers were used. There's this iconic hollywood image of archers firing at long ranges, but we have reason to think that the main bulk of arrows loosed may have been at closer ranges. The art tends to show archers shooting at low elevations (apart from when attacking in a siege), and it also makes sense to save your arrows for when you know you can hit and have maximum effect. But overall, we don't seem to really know as of now
Time didn't forget - west world forgot. In Poland for example many archers use those and everyone having basic knowledge about archery knows what a recurve bow is.
Just a quick historical point shad, though I'm sure its was a slip of the tongue. Constantinople didn't change its name to byzantium and the people therein didn't call themselves byzantines, as far as they were concerned their land was Rome and they were Romans. Think of it like this, if London and the South of England were taken over by the French, the people in the North of England would still be English and live in England. Byzantium was the name of the pre-roman Greek settlement that Constantinople was built upon. The "Byzantine empire" was a name assigned to that area and its people by modern era historians to distinguish it from classical Rome, but I think its actually more confusing and prefer to simply call it Eastern-Rome. Would be a fascinating area and point in history for you to make some vids on actually, their armour and warfare is particularly interesting as it seems to be European at heart but with a near Eastern aesthetic.
but you got the direction wrong. Byzantium was the original settlement that existed even before "year 1" and Constantinople was officially given as the new name of the imperial capital BY Emperor Constantine around 350 CE. The rest is very complicated with different backgrounds for latin and greek names and various uses, just like an emperor might be Augustus, Caesar, Imperator, Basileus or twenty other titles, the empire and it's main seat of power also were called different things by different groups for different times.
@@cablea6077 You said Constantinople changed to Byzantium (but not truly as both stayed "Rome") where it was definitely the other way round with Byzantium the older name
24:25 Manchu bows were not "short recurves." They were quite long, often a bit over 5ft strung. Regarding efficacy & power, keep in mind that quality is key. The available evidence does indicate that good-quality shorter composite recurves provide some additional kinetic energy at any give draw weight compared with good-quality yew longbows. A poorly made shorter composite recurve might perform worse than a well-made yew longbow. Also, preliminary testing shows that Manchu-style large composite recurve bows, with big siyahs, perform much better than yew longbows with heavy arrows. (Again, comparing at good quality.) In theory, English archers could have hit harder with Manchu-style bows. Shorter composite recurves, like traditional Turkish bows, excel at shooting light arrows high velocity. They're considerably better at this than yew longbows. Regarding weather, it seems like it was possible to keep horn-&-sinew bows & arrows dry & in prime condition in wet climates, but that this required a lot of care & attention. Horn crossbow prods did see widespread use across Europe, but its possible that they were easier to protect from moisture than horn-&-sinew bows.
Your comment is full of a series of claims that are unsubstantiated. I think you're taking the fact that there *may have been* and currently are Manchu bows examples over 5' in length as giving you permission to claim "they were quite long" as if it was the standard [during the Medieval Era] when the propensity of information would indicate that they were not. This is born out by the lack of surviving examples of large Manchu bows (vs a comparative number of small bows), the lack of evidence in surviving artwork and historic text from the time that they were as large (let alone larger) as 5', and the impracticality of a people of shorter stature using bows that long. As with all issues involving historic weapons, there were likely exceptions. There were exceptions in the size of people and there were almost certainly some exceptionally large people who used weapons customized to them. Exceptions, however, don't make the rule, and it is patently inaccurate to claim Manchu bows as large as 5' were commonplace. There is no "testing" of historically accurate medieval Manchu bows (because no surviving example has been in good enough condition to be accurately replicated) vs a medieval English longbow to definitively demonstrate that Manchu bows would have been more effective or more powerful. There are numerous tests of varying styles of bow construction that demonstrate the hypothetical advantages and disadvantages of each particular style and potential if built with modern tools, tech, and materials. This is not the same as a test of historically accurate comparisons. The issue of European use of self bows and long bows being more common vs composite bows has simply been acknowledged as common knowledge among historians and military experts as an issue of weather and climate. There is no definitive argument. Historic sources addressing the issue are thin. The assumption of durability based on climate differences is basically a practical one based on the limited available knowledge. Just as likely an influence on the types of bows used is the availability of resources and familiarity with them. Northwestern Europeans learned to utilize what they had readily available, as did the Mongols, Manchurians, Turks, etc. The fact that Welsh/English/Scandinavian longbow usage prevailed and gained popularity at the time over recurve and composite bows in Western and Northern Europe - and they were familiar enough to Europeans to make practical comparisons - testifies to some sort of utility and/or strategic advantage perceived by those who were able to make appropriate comparisons. Recurve and composite bows continued to be more popular in the Mediterranean, Spain, and Southeastern Europe. The popularity of crossbows seemed to have eclipse all 'vertical' bows in popularity everywhere in Europe except in the British Isles, before gunpowder weapons eclipsed the use of bows altogether. The progression of changes reflects perceived utility rather than impractical dogma being the driving motivation for weapon of choice. When gunpowder weapons proved to be a definitively superior weapon choice for the English, the switch was made. The reason for the popularity of self bows is self evident. They're easy to construct and effective enough for hunting. That they could be used as a weapon of warfare, if less effective than purpose-made bows for warfare, was secondary to their practicality as a tool for hunting. What is a definitive historic fact is that composite bows were far less popular in Western and Northern Europe than in dryer climates south and east of the region. It is highly unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that composite bows would have been eschewed in favor of self and/or longbows or simple composition recurve bows if composite bows could've been proved better. The "effectiveness" of a weapon is completely relative. What it costs, how it is used, who it is used against, and under what conditions it is used are all important factors. Just as the conditions the English endured heavily influenced their use of the longbow, so did the conditions of other peoples, including the Turks and Mongols. What was ideal for them was unlikely universally ideal for everyone else. Besides urging you to be more diligent in vetting historic information before making claims, I urge you to do a better job reasoning out comparisons before proclaiming that one historic item or method was better or more effective.
@@merlball8520 @Merl Ball hey, just wanted to jump on the manchu bow camp trian wagon, as a practicing archer, and a historian to boot, I'm sure all archers who shot both bows agree that there is no question on which is currently more efficient with heavy arrows. A modern made manchu designs beats a modern made longbow every time, in every aspect. Manchu design is one of the best, if not the best bow design developed for heavy arrows. As far as I understand you are not claiming otherwise, just trying to point out that we lack evidence for an accurate comparison between the two during medieval times, and this is somewhat true because earliest manchu bows we have left I think are from around 1630s however there are remnants of older arrows and arrow heads for the thing. And we definitely have artwork depicting what are later to become the manchu bows as early as the 12-13th century. However there are many replicas made in North China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan using historic tools and materials and on average they either perform on par, or outright outperform their modern material counterparts in terms of doing what they are designed to do, fling big heavy arrows (40-65grams, 80-115cm) over long distances. I think the main point that needs to be made, and that is not being made on behalf of the right angled siyah bows with stiff string bridges (manchu design), is the one of it's place in culture and priority. The longbow (self/bare bow) is your weapon of the peasant, cheap, most efficient for it's price, if broken or mistreated are replaceable. They are your AK-47 of the medieval times get the job done and are cheap, reliable, replaceable, powerful. Most recurve bows from the asiatic countries are also weapons of war and hunting, but unlike the longbows are also symbols of status and power. They can be compared to how medieval Europe went to town on improving their swords and longswords, which were a great status and power symbol just like bows for the steppe people among others. As a result of this opposite approaches, bow making in many countries had much greater development and consistency, as it paid well and was a very respected high end job. With emperor's and Khans proudly shooting the works of art of their artisans. This difference in approach is key to the difference. You don't compare a rusty trusty AK-47 to modern state of the art assault rifles. Yes they both will kill, yes if you get hit by either you won't really care, but if two marksmen meet each other in a sporting competition, be that competition on accuracy/distance/rate of fire, I am certain given the choice and having no national prejudice both would pick the manchu bow to win. I find the entire comparison between the two as weapons of war silly, you can't compare a "500 dollar AK" to a "15000 dollar assault rifle complex". They are in different leagues to begin with. Different places in society, vastly different complexities of putting together, and as a result are two very different pieces of equipment. (P.S. the big problem with Manchus was the twist you got at high poundages, so just like with an expensive high tech modern rifle, you had to care of your dear bow for it not let you down when it's most needed, even though archers could fix broken siyahs themselves in field conditions, they were the ones succeptable to breaking, it still took a couple of days, and would be more then an inconvience if that happened on the eve of battle or a big hunt) And I'm not saying that all manchu bows were expensive works of art. I am trying to say that with such emphasis on bow building and development, were you even had entire empires decreeing the manchu bow be put as the bow of choice, opening thousands of bowyers and spreading this unique art of bow building enmass, at the end you got an amazingly streamlined design that remains unmatched for heavy arrow shooting until this day. And as a result of this difference in culture of bow development your every day early Ming soldier on the field, marching as an archer in the emperor's army, would get on average a much better bow, then his counter part in late medieval England.
Pff "think of the medieval archery" ... somehow in my case images that come to mind are russian, byzantine, mongol, muslim etc mounted archers with recurve bows
May be older than medieval too. In the odyssey it is suspected that oddysious's bow was a recurve bow and needed a specific method to string it and was incredibly difficult to pull relative to its size.
It's not even maybe, it's as close to certain as it can be in regards to the technologies required. Bows are a prehistoric technology. Ötzi was found with a work in progress yew bow stave.
Oh it's almost certainly a recurve bow. Odyssyos is a traveller, he goes all over the place and one place he's known to have gone is up into the black sea. That means that almost 100% chance he would have come into contact with the Scyth, who dominated that area for hundreds of years. The Scyth, being the inventors of the recurve bow, probably had them around this time and it's not too unreasonable to assume that Odyssyos bought one as a curiosity and learned how to use it.
@@arnaudpascal1691 Huh, so maybe even older than the Scyth. Damn. Well, in that case I'll have to clarify that although the Scyth did not invent the recurve bow, they were prolific users of it.
@@moritamikamikara3879 I did not mean to contradict you because I suppose it's a matter of shaping. Very early depictions of bows (-2000 and before) as well as bow remains from egyptian tombs (-1000 and before) are interpreted as composite bows, but they don't have the "classic" shape such as the present video. I just meant to add that if the present video's bow design is similar the scythes of old, differently shaped horn and sinew bows also existed. My point was to add that there is plentiful evidence and findings showing that bows are an old and stable tech.
Thanks Shad for this video. From Central and North Eastern European perspective, from what I've seen, period artwork depicts only short, mostly re-curve bows and crossbows. That is why longbows always seemed rather odd and stereotypical British Isle thing, like tartan kilts.
Depends on where you live i guess. Here in Hungary recurve bow are anything but forgotten. Even in the early gunpowder era during the ottoman-habsburg wars, it was still in use by light cavalry. ...and since my fellow countrymen are here in europe since more than a millenia, it would be foolish to assume that we somehow kept the technology secret.
@Shadevirsity speaking of Longbow's advantages: I wonder if ease of storage was a major issue given that an unstrung Longbow is basically a wooden stick.
Yes!! I just had my traditional recurve bow out today and had so much fun showing off my terrible archery to my sons haha. Also once you get that stringing technique down you feel so ba every time you string it:) Thanks for this video and all you do Shad! -Dan
roman recurve bows were actually scythian and hunnic bows. They either hired scythian and hunnic mercenaries or bought hornbows from them. Have evience for both of these.
The recurve bow is mentioned in the Old Testament,then again the people who think it is from Asia and was a later import probably never heard of The Byzantines,who seem to have been left out of history books.Northwest Native Americans also apparently had recurve bows,they seem to have been the most advanced woodworkers,while other tribes like Plains Tribes had othertypes of bows and Rocky Mountain tribes had very powerful composite bows capable of taking down Bison.
The Compound bow has been used for thousands of years. It was a well known technology and no surprise it's mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, understand that the Old Testament was written during "Babylonian Captivity" around 600 BC. The scholars of Judah had access to the archives of the Babylonian Empire, dating back thousands of years earlier to the Mother Civilization of Sumeria. They borrowed a lot: Flood stories, Eden, Gilgamesh = Samson, Angels = Annunaki, etc. The Ancient Egyptians adopted the Hyksos compound bow around 1500 BC. When you combined the Hyksos compound bow and the light, but highly maneuverable Egyptian chariot, you had a deadly combination which wasn't surpassed until mounted horse archers.
@@davidokinsky114 Yes. Archery started 70,000 years ago and the recurved Compound Bow existed at least 4100 years ago. So, it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the Achaeans during the Trojan War had compound bows and probably simple bows as well.
I saw a recent video of Lars Andersen demonstrating fast fire rate using Comanche archery style where several arrows are held together on the left side of the bow and fired from the left side while maintaining high accuracy, even hanging on the side of horseback. Have you tried this style, and also are there any medieval depictions similar to the Comanche archery style?
Shad, you have to check out Hungarian bows and Hungarian Medieval in general, bc from our perspective Curved bow was the main thing ..and horse shooting tactics and stuff.
To find out my favorite book series “Rangers Apprentice” taught me accurate information about Bows. The problem is he plays into the “Viking” horn helmet myth as well as calling a round shield and Buckler. But hey, it’s technically a kids book so I think a little flare can’t hurt.
But they used normal knives as throwing knives :( also claimed that bow is more precise (and generally better in arms of trained warrior) than crossbow. Also the bad reputation and disrespect for the rangers claimed to exist in first book is non-existent to the point that in 8 (?) Will, the ranger, is more known and respected by common folks from random distant Village that the knight (already should've been more respected) who killed the main enemy of the kingdom (he should be a national hero) as a teen (legends should've been created about him!). Yet it's "Famous Will Treaty who did this Famous Treaty, also some knight."
@@a.w.4708 @A. W. I think you're misremembering the books pretty hard here. The books were very clear that throwing knives are different than normal knives, and that they were preferable. The Rangers didn't have so much of a bad reputation as much as there being a mysterious air that lent itself to superstition. This was clear throughout the books. Lastly, the crossbow has advantages and disadvantages to it compared to the longbow. The Rangers preferred the longbow because it had a much better firing rate, a much longer accurate range, and because it was quieter.
@@matthewchamberlain2953 well, maybe... But I remember quite well my reaction when I red about Will being more recognisable among random people than Horace, the literal defeater of the most direct enemy of Araluen. Even looking at real world (since the Universe is really, really inspired by it): which people were more recognised in folklore: Brave knights who defeated mighty enemies of the kingdom or the signers of treaties? In Araluen it appears that it is the later. And honestly I've never seen in books this "they are a bit scary, we don't trust them" attitude towards Rangers and I am sure it was said to exist in first book.
I recently revealed the genders of my two girlfriends. It got a lot of hate and now has 30 times more dislikes than likes. I am really sad that people can be so mean. Sorry for using your comment to talk about my problems, dear see
But... but most of Asiatic bows were medieval from Hungarian, Bulgarian, Avar, Mongolian, Tatar, Turkish... :D And Serbian bow you ordered might have been actually influenced by Turkish bows. Scythian bow is a total disconnection to medieval Europe - way too specific to Scytho-Sauromatian bows. Mediterranean draw is fine but these bows kicks better when thumb drawn. And use a thumb ring for this 😉
As an archer and an historian, I can say with confidence that recurve bows had a HUGE impact on European history! From the ancient Ayrians (Medes) and their opponents the Byzantine Romans (among others), to Mongolian horse archers, to Huns, to Eastern Europeans (those nations most influenced by the aforementioned peoples), the recurve has repeatedly demonstrated its lethality on the field of battle. Far from being "forgotten," these bows remain widely popular even to this day. Also, I want to dispel a myth about so-called "strength bows": There simply ain't no such thing! Bows come in a variety of pulls and weights (eg, "strengths"). And while it is possible to have them custom-made for specific weights, historically, they have been made with the strength of the archer in mind, the military needs of the nations/cultures making them, and the use they were meant to be put to (that is, military "war bows" were typically stronger, as they had to penetrate that pesky armor stuff). That said, if an exceptional individual came along like Odysseus, he'd definitely have a bow only that individual could pull. (I should point out that his son, Telemachus, could almost pull that monster! Certainly someone like Aias/Ajax the greater would have no problem doing so.) So for ages, I've incorporated Strength to hit and damage bonuses into my campaigns for missile weapons that involved an element of strength to use them well...and penalties for those who are not strong enough to use them (the stronger the bow, the faster the arrow, the flatter the trajectory; the greater the strength of the bow, the greater the damage, ergo...). Base damage remains the same as listed in the 2nd Edition Players Handbook, modified for armor type, cover, range, etc...
Indeed, the Eastern European history is only mentioning this tyoe of bow as the standard war bow for the entire Medieval era. Used by everyone from Tatars, Turks, Huns to Slavs, Vlachs, Serbs. They were the standard bow of war and no one here seem to complain about them or demand biggeror stronger bows.
I think what it is meant by strenght bow is a bow not ment to be shot but to test your strenght. Specially since the design of such bows is inneficient. If I remember correctly some were used to pass chinese martial examinations of strenght and control. The idea being if you can handle this ridiculously heavy bow with control and precision you can easily handle a war bow.
Dude, as a Slovak I must say that its absolutely not forgotten or diminished here in central Europe. Im a part of HEMA archery group and I can say that on every competition event or exhibition event, the short recurve bows are much more prominent than longbows. I would even say that here in Central Europe where we were affected by turkish and mongol raids throughout the whole middle ages the longbow was not present at all. Consider that outside Anglo-French territory, where welsh longbow is the most prominent and asian style recurve bow was not used, all other europe used these short bows, because of frequent conflicts with Turks, Balkans, Mongols, Hungarians, etc. The mental situation you are describing is only taking place in english speaking countries imho. Everywhere else its the other way around.
This 100%, wonderful post. This video is a pure product of a very Anglocentric mind. He uses the word 'medieval' (history) as it was exclusive to western Europe/England every time, that's very narrow minded and borderline offensive.
As a very amateur bow builder, recurving tips - especially on short(er) bows serves a couple additional functions beyond preventing the string from falling off at full draw, and you sort of mentioned it. Like you said, a shorter non-recurve bow drawn to a normal full draw is going to have increased string angle at the tips. This impacts the draw characteristics and greatly effects potential efficiency. Every bow 'stacks' at some point during the draw where it becomes harder and harder to pull for a given amount of draw and at this point you start to lose efficiency - you don't gain anything from pulling beyond that point. Short straight limbs will intuitively start to stack at a shorter draw so by recurving you are improving late draw string angle and you're able to push that point further back into the draw in order to attain a full ~28+" draw on a short bow. There's obviously more design and material considerations and interactions at work but I think that's the greatest advantage recurved limbs have on a shorter bow. There's also additional force/draw benefits of recurve limbs in general that make them overall more efficient than straight limbed bows but that's another conversation. Bow design and material capabilities is really cool and I highly recommend reading the Traditional Bowyer's Bible I for more on this specific topic
Another advantage of a shorter bow is the overall weight distribution. Weight that is further away fron the point of rotation, needs way more energy to be moved. By moving the tips closer to the handle you greatly reduce the Problem of extra weight on the tips eating away the power that you invested during the draw. Every gram on the tips of longbow reduces the efficency of the bow to a far greater degree than extra weight on a shorter bow.
@@thomastschojer2268 agreed, overall mass and mass placement has a huge impact on cast and performance. It's fascinating to see how different cultures differently addressed these variables. As far as I know, there's a whole family native American short plains bows that were straight limbed, a little heavier to pull, and just had shorter draws. And those worked just great for what they needed it to do
Came here to say this. Quite right. It's more about how the bow stacks than about the string falling off. Recurves make bows more efficient and nicer to draw.
Great video, Shad. Growing up, I was always intrigued by recurve bows and wondered why medieval Europeans didn't use them for mounted archery like the Turks or Arabs. The books I read either said that they didn't have the technology or that it was somehow against the knightly code of ethics. Then one day I was looking at the Bayeux Tapestry and saw a Norman knight using a recurve now on horseback! So then I was confused. Glad you made this video to clear up my misconceptions. I'd love to see a video on mounted archery in the Middle Ages and where the misconception that Europeans didn't practice it originated. Keep up the good work.
They actually also had crossbows at the Battle of Hastings, now we need Shad to compare crossbow vs bow myths.
@@patricialavery8270 I mean
It depends?
Bows and crossbows are designed for what they were made to do.
Crossbows new weapon against the growing armor of the era.
As not every army is gonna have well trained archers but crossbowmen? Is a different story. It's easy to load and shoot.
Compared to their English longbowmen counter parts.
Recurve bows and self-longbows were used across the entirety of Eurasia. The Romans stationed Syrian bowman with recurve bows in Britain (known for its wet climate), and longbows were commonly used in parts of South Asia/India and southern China.
I'm sure I saw in s documentary years ago that the longbows found on the Mary Rose were recurves.
Can you point us to the Norman knights with recurve bow on BT?
I can find only one character with a bow on a horse, at the very end, and it looks like perfectly straight bow, with no siyahs/recurved tips.
Hi Shad, thanks a lot for the shoutout. Thumb draw in my opinion is a lot harder for heavy bows. Even some horse archers also use finger draw when necessary, depending on the situation (examples include a sore/damaged thumb, lost thumb ring, or personal preferences). Thumb draw on the other hand allows a further draw length so more power stroke, and theoretically a faster release (although more testing should be done). On horseback, both thumb and finger draw can be done, and on both sides. There are many variations of these techniques which is mostly forgotten in the modern archery world today. Glad you can revive some of this interest with your popular channel!
It's pretty cool to find out about this stuff through shad's channel
Is thumb draw harder because it's harder to use a thumb, or is it harder because you learned 3 finger Mediterranean draw as your first and primary draw method?
yea i usually switch between the two to manage soreness.
also you can use your middle finger to support the thumb draw, neat trick i discovered.
@@Intranetusa That's a complicated question for several reasons and even go as far as not necessarily harder rather it's just different. The obvious thing is that the same weight is loaded on one joint rather than three is more taxing on your hand, that being said the different wrist position results in a more stable forearm. Now the not so obvious thing, in my experience shooting thumb draw requires a different mindset from shooting 3 finger (regardless whether it's mediterranean or 3 under). While release can be clearer (seeing as you only have to loosen one joint instead of three), thumb draw comes in many variations (both in grip and anchor point) so finding the correct combination that suits you can be a challenge. The last thing that comes to mind is the bow hand, in case of thumb draw the two hand need to work together in order to get a good release and that coordination might pose a challenge. Keep in mind I might be leaving stuff out, that's mostly because I'm still learning and I have a shitton of things to discover still.
Thumb draw requires practice from an early age to master heavy bows. The Steppe cultures started early with children playing with small bows. Furthermore, they oftentimes used a thumb ring for additional leverage. They understood that heavier the bow, the greater the stand off distance: i.e., you can hit someone before they hit you. Mongolian-style archery using a Mongolian bow is often used with a thumb ring.
Forgot? That's clearly the hunting bow, from Skyrim, Shad.
2018 Robin Hood as well
I wish the hunting bow in Skyrim wasn't useless, because it's beautiful
It's an Ebony Bow using the Real Bows mod.
@@Mote. just mod it.
I was about to say that
Hi Shad, In Hungary there are planty of "forgotten" bow. I have "forgotten" ones as well. We call these bows as traditional bows. Here is a video about a hungarian word champion. ruclips.net/video/CCa2PdpZMN8/видео.html
shad: *GRUNTS WITH THE FORCE OF A THOUSAND SUNS*
also shad: "oh it's not that bad actually"
Historical pranks that ought to have happened: The King of France sells the King of England a large shipment of high quality recurve bows at a very low price.
French Courtier: "My liege! Why would You outfit our sworn enemy with such mighty weaponry?!"
Le Roi: "Pffft, zese bows, zey are useless in ze rain, and England hasn't 'ad a summer for ze last two hundred years!"
Monsieur Courtier: "Soooo... You plan on invading ze isles?"
Big Roy: "Ma non! Buuuuuut We have ALSO sold a boatload of Byzantine Steel to ze Scots!"
*Hon-hon-hon intensifies*
The frog laughter really puts a bow on this scenario
There is an argument that the English longbow had some recurve to them. Iirc it is the warbows brought up with the Mary Rose are what our English longbows are copied from and they all went flat in the water. The recurve bow Shad shows at 17:41 might be how they were shaped judging from English medieval artwork.
@@trevtall1094 It's wrong though. Longbows were made in the straight limb shape long before the Mary Rose was discovered. Victorian archery in particular lionized the traditional straight limbed bow as a (now disproven) example of English historical superiority.
"Hon-hon-hon intensifies" is the finest stage direction written in the history of the English language.
Growing up i loved the Rangers Apprentice series by John Flanagan. The first bow the main character gets is a short recurve because of the lower poundage for higher velocity. Its good to see short bows get some love.
Rangers appretice to me is what harry potter is to most people
@@ferro9926 same
YES! Same guys, although I dropped it on the 12 volume. To this day my imagination fuels from memories of this series
@@ferro9926 Same.
Ah, a man of culture, I see. 😄
so who else was cheering on shad at the beginning while he was stringing the bow
Speaking of, it's easier to wrap one leg around it to keep it stable, hold it vertically, and step on it just enough to bend it down and string it
ME!
I was cheering for the bow to win
Great video Shad. Oz you will be made an archer yet one day lol.
I was enjoying his struggle.
I love how animated he gets on such arcane topics. Gotta love the passion.
I am of Magyar descent, so am very happy to see you representing some of our kit.
I'm Pole and I'm also happy. Interestingly, this bow is a part of polish noble insignia, along with sabre.
“The medieval bow time forgot”
I was thinking about the recurve every time you criticized fiction for having small bows…
All jokes aside, I knew history of and practiced on the recurve before I even knew about longbows. So I thought if the recurve ALL the time in your videos, I think it’s really cool that you’re clearing up your misconceptions and addressing the recurve, it’s such a great bow.
It's a much faster, stronger bow than that plank with a stick Brittish are always pushing, and also it can be used from horseback, but real recurve bows are made from composite. Usually keratin, leather, sinnew and yew. Used by the Hungarians long before coming to europe and used by their ancestors the Huns to demolish Roman legions
@@Loki-qo2kb Also used by the Mongols to conquer half the known world
@@6393dude yh but that was mostly Strategy and tactics
But the Romans Adapted recurve bows from the scyths, which are essentially asian.
Yup. The composite or recurve bow is Asian. That it was used by Europeans does not mean that it is not Asian in origin
In my headcanon when playing D&D I always just assumed that the "shortbow" and "longbow" category names were an artifact of historical convention that no longer referred to the size of the bows, either dating back to the earliest days when the first bows were invented before composite bows, lamination or the idea of recurves even became a thing, and all bows were de-curve self-bows, or that the original naming of "short" and "long" bows referred to the range of the bow and not its size, and that by the time, in setting, of the campaign, bows were just classified by their performance, so any bow that performed the way the rules state a longbow should, is a longbow, regardless of its physical size, and any bow that performed the way a shortbow does is one, regardless of its size. I mean, once we get to enchanted bows and magical materials one ought to be able to make a bow of any size fire at any poundage, with the poundage controlled by the magic....
Considering the strong influence Native Americans have had on North American archery, there is a pretty good chance that the short and long bows in D&D are based on their traditions. Many Native American tribes had 2 bows built in similar styles; one that was long, with a heavy draw weight used primarily for warfare, and one that was shorter, lighter, and used for hunting. Longer bows will generally allow for longer draw lengths, which accelerates the arrow longer, which then results in faster arrows that can fly further. But longer limbs weigh more, which means the arrow accelerates less quickly. So you are right in that with any number of magical materials, you could make a shortbow that was more powerful than a longbow.
AD&D was even weirder you had Longbows and Shortbows which is mostly a typical wargaming type categorization to make a distinction between armies that had formidable firepower like the English and those that had bows, but which didn't seem to have a critical effect in battle. Gygax must have consulted some 1960's books on weapons or encyclopaedia and discovered that they used a different type of bow in the east. And given that the mysterious orient had superior weapons, martial arts and all that mystical stuff their bows were better so that basic European bows were OK, but the really fancy Oriental models allowed you to use your strength and dexterity bonuses, but they both came in long and short version. Same with long and short type weapons, almost every single time the larger one is considered much harder to use and requires a highly trained user, whereas any peon or wizard with tiny withered arms can lift up a short weapon and be competent with it. It's all about game mechanics and introducing distinctions and principles that didn't apply in real life. The only advantage of short weapons was that they were handier in tight quarters, not because they were mean to be easier to handle somehow.
Not wrong. The problem is always jargon and terms used. To modern bowhunters, a longbow means one thing. To those of us who make bows, where tiller and limb geometry define styles, it means something else. To the British Longbow Historical Society, something else again.
I will call a Hadza hunting bow a "short longbow" because that best describes how the bow WORKS,, because I make bows. I struggle to call an English longbow a recurve, even if it has recurved tips (which I would, in most cases Shad cited,, actually call "reflexed" tips.)
So, yeah.
My interpretation is that D&D had short bow refer to a bow that was short, and long bow to one that was long. The distinction between manufacturing details is covered by the "mighty" modifier. A basic short bow is unlikely to be a recurve, but a mighty +4 one that someone with 18 strength can take full advantage of will be taking advantage of every possible trick to beef it up.
@@cuernimus Perhaps "hunting bow" and "war bow" would be a better categorisation then, if you wanted to split bows into two categories for gameplay reasons.
Its Not realy forgotten , Shad only looks in the wrong places
I live in Hungary an European Country and recurve bows are realy popular here.
Many Hungarians say that Recurve bows are an important part of our histrory and many try to promote it.
Also in Hungarian reenactments , mediveal festivals and also in Castles you can see many recurve bows
its a realy important part of our history
Given that the longbow was predominantly a British thing (the idea of which was taken from the Welsh after Wales was conquered by England), the concept of the longbow as an ubiquitous medieval bow is a very Anglophilic thing.
Longbows are used across Europe and across Eurasia. There are remains of ice age longbows found in the Alps, and longbows were historically used in South Asia (eg. India) and southern China too.
@@Intranetusa Sure, for hunting. Not generally for war. I challenge you to find me one historical army outside of the English that used the longbow as their typical bow.
Yes. the next episode should be about Arpad dynasty or Premyslid or Battle of Lechfeld :D
I've only recently become aware that the military history of Eastern Europe is significantly neglected in the English-speaking world. There's a tendency for people in British-influenced nations to believe Europe begins at Germany. It's not deliberate -- it's just an effect of language and culture. I'm interested in cavalry tactics and equipment and you can't really understand the evolution of cavalry without studying the armies of Poland, Hungary, and other points east.
Recurve bows and relatively shorter bows are way more prevalent back in the day and even right now.
Dear Shad, I can assure you, in Eastern Europe this bow is definitely not forgotten.
Eastern Europe is quite Asiatic.
@@KeyserSoze23 Same for Central Europe, since it is actually a Hunnic/Hungarian Invention, both Chinese and Romans got it after they were defeated by the Huns. An authentic recurve bow from Hungary is made from Keratin(Horn), Sinew with structural elements of yew and then wrapped in leather. There are vast amount of information about it both pre 800 and after in Hungarian, I'm sure most of it is Translated
HECK NO....THE XIONGNU NU HAS BEEN USING IT SINCE BEFORE THE HUNS. XIONGNU NU WERE A CONFEDERATION OF TURKIC TRIBES IN WESTERN MONGOLIA NOW. HUNGARIAN ALSO HAVE TURKIC BLOOD SO...THAT'S EXPLAINED IT :p@@Loki-qo2kb
If they have blue eyes blond hair and white skin they are White.
@@Loki-qo2kb Nope. The bow is older than the Huns. Perhaps, the scythians or possibly even older. We have examples of the recurve bow much before the Huns. The scythians sculptures with their bows. The coins(1st century)of cheras in the deep south of India also had recurve bows.
Interesting to think about how only Odysseus could string and fire his bow. Assuming his bow was a palintonos, it may well have been a composite recurve bow. If he were even marginally larger and stronger than others of his era and culture, it's easy to see why Homer used it as a plot device. (Or perhaps Odysseus simply knew how to string the bow properly, if it was a type the locals were not familiar with.) Homer was supposedly blind, yet knew just how powerful you had to be in order to string and fire a bow. Seeing poor Shad nearly pop a blood vessel really brings it home.
The Iliad/Odyssey is surprisingly accurate in its depiction of the late Bronze age period right before the collapse. Even mentioning weapons and armor that were from said period.
I never got the idea that Odysseus was unusually large, and his bow is the only reference I recall to him being stronger than normal. But given the Greek penchant for spear, shield, and sword, if he was an archer trained from the cradle it would give him a huge advantage over everyone else he knew.
But this also reminds me of a Viking saga where a warrior with a mighty longbow stood off an assault by himself to protect the king, then his string broke. The king offered his own bow, and the man said it was much too weak.
Well it was definitely composite at least since it is described as being made of rams horn.
Use of a bow is the only weapon that changes the physiology of the dedicated user. It actually changes your muscles, tendons and bones to the point that archaeologists can identify an Archer by their skeleton alone. So if Odysseus was a dedicated lifelong Archer and had a custom war bow it could easily be a 200 plus pound bow that almost nobody could string much less shoot.
Throughout much of history, archers were either professional soldiers or outright martial nobility. As such, archers were usually regarded highly in the ancient world, from the bronze age all the way until their replacement by gunpowder weapons, and all around the world too from the americas to east asia and everywhere in between.
I’ve always used the term “horse bow” when referring to Mongolian short bows specifically. And I thought that were called that because the string wrapped up the siyah was made from horse hair. I have no idea where I got this information in the past but now looking into it I have found nothing to confirm any of that 😂 good video learned a lot
think horsehair has been used in pillows and blankets in the past. came to mined when i heard horsebow.
can also be used in violin bows, for the bards i guess.
Hey Shad, as an engineer, I have to correct something. I absolutely agree that the poundage is a much better measure for the "power" of a bow, than for example it's length or material, like you already say. But the poundage still is quite a bad measure for the power, let me give you two simple examples. First let's compare your 100lb longbow against a 100lb crossbow with typical dimensions. At first glance we could say equal poundage equal power. But since this crossbow has less range, less damage potential, produces less energy and probably less momentum, this would be a stupid statement. This difference can be easily explained by their draw lengths. So I propose to use a better definition of power, the damage potential would be perfect, but it's hardly measurable, but still much better measures than poundage would be power and momentum. Let's use power, it's more practical, since it's mostly independent of arrow weight.
Now with the second example I want to introduce something else. So imagine a comparison between again your 100lb longbow and this time a well made 100lb modern compound bow. This time both bows have about the same draw length so the difference in power can't come from the draw length. But which bow is more powerful, i.e. which one delivers greater energy? In this case it's easy to say, the compound bow is the winner. This can be explained by their "draw force curve". Modern compound bows are optimized in a way that they reach their maximum poundage right away, after a few inches, and hold it at a constant level until right before the bow is fully drawn. Then the poundage drops drastically. A longbow on the other hand has about a linear increase of force over draw distance. If we "integrate" (some advanced form of summation, little math is needed) both these curves, we calculate the stored energy. By the argumentation it's shown, that the compound bow stores a much higher energy. Then there's also the topic of efficiency which I don't want to touch here. I assume the recurve and the longbow also have quite different draw force curves, but it's difficult to say which one's better.
I recommend to look up "draw force curve" and at everybody, feel free to ask if something is unclear or you disagree in something. Thanks for reading and an upvote might help, that Shad actually sees this comment!
There actually is a definite answer to which has the superior draw force curve, or rather, power delivery curve. Recurve bows, especially those with a severe recurve, maintain higher power delivery for longer than a simple longbow but not as long as a compound bow. The recurve ends up acting similarly to the pulleys on a compound bow but typically aren't quite as effective.
Well that seems to be a good scientific explanation for what I would feel when shooting a composite recurve compared to a longbow, and also watching how the arrows left the bow. Thanks
well, dang... I really have to skim over comments before writing my own.
The only thing I have to add is Newton's third law. The lighter the bow, the more force you have to receive by yourself, instead of it being absorbed by the limbs and considering how many soft connections the human body has I'd wager the efficiency suffers at least a little bit. But I'm not entirely sure if this wouldn't be totally negated by proper technique. And even if it isn't I can't really tell if those considerations are worth the fuss. The effect might be so negligible as to be virtually nonexistent.
Mind you, I never held a bow in my life, let alone shot it... so, I'm mostly talking out of my back side. Which, admittedly, has somewhat of a grip on dynamics...
Wow! Never thought about the compound bow’s increased power storage! You made SEVERAL good points, but that one was a huge revelation for me. Thanks for sharing your knowledge - great addendum to Shad’s video!
Straight limbed bow has an optimal draw length. Shorter the bow=shorter draw length. Not because string may come off (you could just change nock design to prevent this) but Pull it past optimum and the force is pulling more along the length of the limb (called stacking) rather than bending it and storing more energy. Recurves don’t have this problem as it maintains an angle at the end of the limb that even at longer draw lengths that still converts force from the draw to bending the limb hence shorter recurves.
Dude i remember reading the Ranger's Apprentice series as a kid and oh my god, I was obsessed with European recurve bows and honestly still have a lot of interest in them, than you for making such a well-rounded, accurate and historical video to encompass possibly one of my favourite bows :)
Do you think Shadiversity will ever build the castles he wants to build?
I was going to comment about Rangers Apprentice. Cause that's where I know of the recurve bow myself. Glad to see I wasn't the only one.
You reminded me. I gotta read that again :D
I'm so happy to see another person reference Ranger's Apprentice
Also, the Ranger's Apprentice has a sequel series if you didn't know. It is called Ranger's Apprentice; The Royal Ranger.
It's unbeliviable how much power is in such small bow
And I think Shad hit the nail on the head when he said that it's less expensive and complicated to make a longbow of high draw weight then a short composite bow.
The cost of producing large amounts of longbows is probably part of their appeal in medieval combat as opposed to composite short bows or crossbows. Many medieval crossbow men were mercenaries they're professional soldiers they bought their own kit. The bow was more of a primary weapon in many Asian horse cultures, thus there more likely to have a personal more costly; added to this is the fact that a short bows easier to shoot in multiple directions on horseback.
There is a reason why nomads could make composite bows more easily: the CATTLE.
You see, when you make good composite bow, you need glue (could be made from bones), with which you secure horn (or bone) parts on the ends, then glue thin horn plate on the back of the bow and tendons (or rough leather) on the front. The horn and the tendons as a result work like a spring to speed up bow shoulders.
Civilization that is not nomads simply cannot afford to spare so much cow parts.
@@dilen754 In Europe we composite bows did exist; especially on crossbows.
From what I've read traditional composite bows can takes months to cure once assembled & glued. So it seems to me there needs to be somebody who stays put to make the bows, because traveling with bows while they cure would interfere with the curing process.
I also think that stationary civilizations would certainly have access to animal parts such as cows to make those into if they so chose. Granted cows in the Middle ages were more often valued for their milk than meat, but economics drives societies. If a big need for cow parts to make bows were there the $ to slaughter cows for parts would be there too. BUT it is far cheaper & less time consuming to manufacture large numbers of military bows from a natural composite wood, like yew.
@@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145 yes, the are composite bows, but they are quite costly. You can look up for the crossbow price.
The curing process in that regard is long, but not costly per see.
There is as well a misconception that nomads would be always moving, no matter the place and season, that is not right: for example, they can stay quite put in winter.
Yes, the economics drive societies... And that is precisely why there was quite a shortage of cattle - it is simply not cost effective when you need to feed a large city. Cattle took a lot of place, it is hard to protect etc. Of course there are some, but not nearly as much as in steppes.
So Europe naturally (there I am completely agree with you) preferred simple variant, then make drastic economic efforts for dubious results.
@@dilen754 yes composite bows are expensive regardless of area they were from; even amongst nomads.
If curing can take 6-9 months & winter is 3-4 months then they still need someone staying put.
Cattle we're not in short supply but they were used more for milk than me because you can have a cow make milk throughout the years to make products like cheese which can be stored for many months as opposed to slaughtering a cow which you can only eat once it's simple economics. But if the need for composite bows were big enough then the market for Bose would make raising cattle for slaughter to make bows profitable and therefore it would have been done.
I don't think the results for composite bows in Europe for dubious but when you're equipping a large army economics plays a role in if you can make a serviceable bow I have less out of less expensive materials more quickly... Well it only makes sense to go that roughy.
Often crossbow men were mercenaries so they paid for their own equipment so to have more expensive equipment is more on the individual than the person hiring them. But it's not just crossbows that were composite they were composite bows in Europe.
Many Asiatic nomadic cultures
@@dilen754 Composite bows were costly weather made in Europe or by nomads.
Many nomadic asiatic cultures were horse cultures; as such horsemanship was integrated into their society. Quick archery attacks from horseback make more sense than trying to field infantry based armies. A horse born archer needs lightweight armor primarily designed to deflect arrows, and although often made from metal it could be made from material like horn or hardened leather. Horn & leather based armors are cheaper than fully metal armors. But in a society where you are raising in slaughtering animals the materials are also very readily available. I don't imagine many nomads were mining for iron ore, so they would have had to trade for it rather than get the supplies to make their armors from within their own groups.
Where European knights may prize swords and put a lot of their income into a sword even though a sword wasn't a primary weapon. Asiatic archers would invest money into bows as bows were often their primary weapon.
As far as curing... if nomads camp for winter and winter last three to four months but curing a bow can take anywhere from six months to a year this still doesn't solve the problem of needing someone to do the curing in a set location. When traveling weather can cause all sorts of problems especially with natural glues.
There was never a shortage of cattle in Europe of cattle as far as I'm aware. But cattle were primarily raised for dairy reasons. Products like cheese can store for several months and carry you through a hard winter whereas slaughtering a cow for meat you can only do once.
I still feel if the economics were such that the composite bow were needed & no good alternative was available then the economics of bow making would have caused people to raise cattle for the necessary parts to make bows. But as a natural laminates like yew can make a great bow which is both quicker and less expensive to manufacture than a composite bow. As such there was no great drive to produce in mass composite bows in Europe. We know that composite bows did exist in Europe so we can conclude that there were people willing to pay the extra cost for whatever reason. I don't think the results were dubious, I think they were more expensive and therefore not used when equipping armies. But if somebody were a noble who went hunting or a mercenary who bought their own equipment they might opt for the advantages of a composite bow.
BTW please don't think I'm trying to attack you. I was a philosophy major in college & enjoy debating. I respect you & your opinions, I'm just not convinced as of now. That being said I fully admit I could be wrong & you could be correct.
I'm enjoying this debate!
Just imagine for a moment, the more we watch Shad, the sooner he will get his own castle (a real one) ❤
He already has a real castle what do you mean
@@rollerjumps The reason he bought that huge plot of land was to construct a castle on it (or two castles)
Yeah! So here’s another penny in the box in the form of this comment :)
@RollerJumps Shad has a video on his plot of land and also watch his videos on castles he designed they re amazing.
I'll throw down on it!
Going to move to Sharland if they jabs mandatory here.
I'm getting flashbacks to my childhood and only now I recall how much correct information the elder folk told me about archery and bows when I was a kid. There must've been a respected teacher who was deeply enthusiastic about archery and the knowledge has spread and trickled down to later generations.
The 'horsebow' title is particularly misleading in implying that shorter bows are the only appropriate bows for horseback usage, when not only was every type of bow used from horseback, but the famously-tall Japanese yumi bow was likely designed actively for horseback use.
All cultures aim to make the best bows their materials allow. The Europeans, with excellent access to strong, flexible woods, tended towards a mix of thicker and longer limbs as that is the cheapest way to make strong bows - the longbow's major benefit is it is very cheap to make for its power. Native Americans and most Finno-Ugric tribes had harder and less-flexible wood so made flatbows, which flex more evenly and are better for their woods - and when access to imported yew allowed them to make the cheaper, easier longbow they quickly took over. The Japanese made use of bamboo by using a bamboo-and-wood composite, which had to be made more powerful mostly by getting longer, and using technical refinements to make the bow taller while keeping the grip point at comfortable height. The Mongols and many other groups for that matter, had poor access to good timbers and a surplus of horn and glue, so developed complex techniques for making very powerful bows by lamination - the drawback was that these took skilled crafters a lot of time, and so were expensive. They also took more careful maintenance, but given their expense if you go to the trouble of buying one you will certainly care for it well. Categorising bows by length is unhelpful, when the length of bows seems mostly to just be an outcome of the manufacturing technique.
Yes but if you look at the Yumi bow it has a very long top limb and a very short bottom limb as much as all bows were used on horse back recurves were preferred. Above them was crossbows not the windless however but the short crossbow. Long bows were much harder to draw on horse back.
Something I'm trying to figure out now is if a long bow and a short bow can be similarly powerful by being made at equal poundage, why would anyone make or use a long bow over a short bow?
@@NegatveSpace draw length a 25 lob long bow a 25 lb draw recurve and a 25 lb draw crossbow will all have different maximum distance the crossbow will be shorter the recurve will be longer than the crossbow but shorter than the long bow even though they all have the same pound draw.
@@NegatveSpace also the feel of the long bow is easier than a recurve of the same pound draw.
Native Americans had access to osage orange, not exactly an inferior wood by any means
I always thought that Medieval recurve bows were more prominent than longbows. Mostly because, reportedly, the English were the only ones to widely use longbows.
Same.
Yea well everybody were using the new big thing - the crossbow. And as the crossbow used the same horn and sinew technology (for the most part) so you could indeed say recurves/composite bows were more prominent in a way..
This one of those cases that Shad wasn't aware of something, and largely ignored it, therefore he assumes that the lack of awareness was common.
It's like his whole longbow, shortbow, horse-bow thing. I've never seen Recurve Warbows depicted as weaker than longbows, I've never seen it assumed they werent used in Europe.
Composite recurves are a design optimized for use on horseback, doesn't mean thats it's only use, or that other bows don't work on horseback. He's also conflating reflex bows and recurve bows.
@@Dalfinnr I said what I did knowing about and ignoring crossbows. I've heard it said that Agincourt was not just a major victory for the English Longbowmen but also a victory for the longbow over the shortbow and crossbow mix that the French had their archers equipped with. With this comes the claim that the longbow was superior to the shortbow in terms of capabilities and that the French didn't have anything that could compete with the superior longbow which contributed to the victory at Agincourt. Thus the D&D thing of the longbow being superior to the shortbow looks to be based upon nonsense that has been claimed through history.
@@rainsilent Considering the french did not make use of their crossbowmen at Agincourt it doesn't seem fair to the crossbowmen.. But yes I agree with you 100%. The style of bow is not important but rather the power/draw-weight.
Liked how you commented on D&D bows. And after I watched this video I made my own Homebrew version for Bows in my D&D campaigns, hunting bow in simple weapons, and war Bows for Marshall weapons, and left it to my players whether it was long or short or recurved.
Sounds like the way they should handle bows in D&D is "Poundage" and "Style".
Higher Poundage, higher price, but also higher power, with an actual STR requirement to usage (akin to armor).
Standard versus Recurve, cheaper versus expensive, obvious versus concealable.
don't see that in 5E, it's simplified a lot of things and they wouldn't go for extra complexity
In DnD one solution could be to 'rename' the shortbow and longbow to a light and heavy bow. That would work for the editions I'm aware of. Different damage, potentially different weapon proficiency.
poundage and style "Your shot failed to cause critical damage, but you looked great doing it. +1 on Charisma"
The key problem with a STR requirement on bows would introduce the problem Monks have. That is - needing three or more high stats to just be average compared to other classes. I don't disagree from a "simulator" aspect, but there would be almost no reason to play anything other than a fighter as a physical combat class.
For practical D&D games, I would just negate the strength requirement on bows and focus on the idea that accuracy and critical rate are the focus of the class leveling/damage scaling. That with arrow combinations. As a DM, I would probably allow for some creative use of arrows and magic/enchantment etc. Tying thunder stones to arrows and loosing them would be an amusing strategy.
Anyway - the bows themselves I would class according to pull and archetype. The pull class would come with higher damage potential or even reduced critical threat range (and critical damage done), whereas each pull class would count as something of a feat for weapon specialization. Any untrained character could pull a hunting bow, the rogue or ranger start at being able to pull a low grade warbow (large game hunting, basically). Each additional higher class must be taken in sequence and count as a feat (I may include a bonus feat or two if I feel it necessary on the leveling pathway - depends on the group and the campaign tone - are we building herculean legends or is this a story of the misfits who saved christmas by the skin of their teeth and a happy accident or two? ).
Heavier bows could be drawn at lower strength at a loss of bonuses to damage and crit - IE - you can still pick up and use a bow too heavy for you as a better than nothing. Maybe some sort of strength and dexterity check could be performed in lieu of specific weapon training - so the hulk of the group could still pick up the warbow and fire it untrained, at the risk of failing checks.
Granted, I am talking mostly in 3.5, here... I have no idea what 5 looks like.
Not going to lie Shad, couple months ago I beng watch your archery videos. After you opened my eyes to how the power of bows work, I created new rules for my bows for D&D. Made three categories, hunting bows, war bows, and great bows (200 lb). Love the changes that you inspired me to fix and thank you for the amazing work you do. Also I made Strength requirements for the bows.
You don't need that great of strength.if you can pick up 200lbs. You can pull it. Any bow that need training would be a warbow. Even then your local lumber jack could pull it easy. Us fat slops in the real world would find it a challenge. But a world where you live like medieval But with dragons.
@Wyatt George you use different muscles for lifting and drawing a bow, so no, if you lift 200 you can't necessarily draw a 200 pound bow.
@Luke Rogers, you may be better served by making a home brew rule that assigns a pull strength capability to strength scores i.e.: 16 = 100lbs, 17 = 150lbs, 18 = 200lbs. Good luck, may all your roles be crits!
Actually I Incorporated it as so, hunting bows 1d6 dmg with no strength requirement. War bows 1d8 dmg with strength requirement of 13. Great bows 1d10 with strength requirement of 16. Figured I would set it up to basic D&D strength requirements, but been debating doing 14 and 18 for strength check. Bow models do matter at the moment for usage but debating getting rid of this part.
@@lukerogers9348 I recall in one campaign when the archer rolled a 1 and had his elven bow snap in half! That was the most demoralized player I’d ever seen. Crits work both ways!
I’m just happy to see Shad doing well and thriving.
This fancy mix of quiver and holster for bow is called "sajdak" or "ŁUBIE" (in Poland). Somtimes build only as holster for bow, somtimes had integrated quiver. Used mainly to protectc composite bow from elements and/or for decoration. Used mostly on terrains of EAST EUROPE.
Someone carying "sajdak" alweys caried sword or saber on the oposite side. Depending if there was peace, or war time, sides of carying were switched.
PS. It can by caried on the back like back quiver - but it may by a little awkward.
Coming here from your Ranger video. I think we have finalized the Ranger loadout: falchion and these bows. Excellent portable combination. Perfect for the wilderness. You can even carry the bow in a case.
get a saber instead of the falchion, much better and also, historically accurate
I wasn't surprised that they were used in medieval times, but I didn't expect them to be that common or more efficient than longbows (or just as strong, but that misconception was cleared in a video before). Thinking about it, with the whole construction of the recurve it shouldn't be surprising that it's more efficient.
Also I don't think that you will forget your gloves again anytime soon
well i think the logic behind the longbow, is that it was easier to create then the recurve
@@Adierit Much like how not every foot soldier would be able to afford brand new plate armor, I'd imagine a shortbow like this one would be far more expensive and, thus, more likely to be in the hands of someone wealthier.
3:20 : Bows held in quivers was pretty common in East Asia (lots of historic evidence there), so I am not surprised to see this as well in the Europe/Mediterranean area.
Eastern europe had it from what i know, im really surprised anyone is surprised by this
@@boguslav9502 Yea, me too. As a Hungarian it was always natural to me. But us we see, the world needs more education :)
@@GaborSzabo747 I remember doing role playing and when learning about the szlachta etc. or even earlier and recurve/reflex bows were everywhere in our minds, to the point I always prefered them even in games such as mount and blade. But you are right the world is oddly... western europe centrific...
Polak węgier dwa bratanki, i do szabli i do szklanki!
I was surpised Shad didn't know about the bow quivers. If you were to look at any Orthodox church art featuring bows, you'll find a lot of bow quivers shown.
Sycthians, Sarmatians, Huns, Turks, Mongolians, Eastern-Central Europeans all had them among others, it's only new to Shad.
Maybe get in contact with Kassai Lajos, he dedicated his whole life to archery, especially recurve bows, and also the hungarian/hunnic culture. This man lives, breathes, and bleeds archery. He mainly does it from horseback, because this is how the huns traditionally did it, but he has a really great amount of knowledge about traditional recurve bows and how they were used in fighting and hunting
Én is őt ajánlottam🙂
he uses it on the wrong way, he dont do thumbrelease bc he dont have full thumb........ you say just a bad example
@@tengriguidesmysteps960 There are different drawing methods. You can read about them on the wiki, search 'bow draw'.
Me, almost every time I watch a new Shadiversity video while writing my TTRPG: Bugger, something else to rework...
Short bows would actually be perfect for Wood Elves. Much less likely to get caught on branches and other things when moving.
True, also Elves are very slight creatures as a rule. They aren't feeble but Longbows require a lot of strength.
@@treborschafer3945 your elf my be slight but my High Elf Archer Mage in Skyrim is a 6 foot 4 monster of a Mer.
@@treborschafer3945 Both type of bow require a lot of strength but it comes from the back muscles not from the arms(as many people seems to think so) so they would just have stronger muscles on their shoulder blades.
@@treborschafer3945the video went right above your head then, I see :)
Great vid Shad! Cool to learn new stuff about bows.
I feel your pain stringing - the first time I went to string my mongolian bow was a STRUGGLE.
Is this video broken for anyone else
8:55 - A Horse-bow is, clearly, a type of bow a horse would use.
Medieval people were up to some really crazy stuff.
Think of the draw weight a horse could handle. We're taliking ballista territory. 😆
It is called a bow because the glue to join the parts to make the bow was made out of horses.
@@piotrjeske4599 as opposed to rabbit bows. Or human bows. 😆
Funny, but I have a better explanation: horsebow menans a bow which fires horses 😂😂
@@gergelyrohaly250 You sir, operate on a completely different level, this is brilliant.
well the composite bow did originate from asia (cental asian steppes) and the oldest one that was found is from 600 b.c. from the scythians. later as the scythians spread into eastern europe and deeper into asia their neighbours (who they often invaded) started to adopt them too.
Tutankhamen had two composite bows in his tomb. Egypt, Africa, around 1350 b.c. and probably not actually the oldest found.
@@freakusofc643 how does it look like?
Shad love you but you made a mistake around 28:30 by saying a lighter bow is easier to hold steady and therefore more accurate. Which is untrue in fact the opposite is true we literally put additional weights on bows to make them easier to hold steady. Granted those are modern bows. But the concept of a heavier bow being less accurate is wrong. In general it is easier to be more accurate with a heavier bow.
edit: i forgot to say the reason why it is that way. when you pull back your bow your arm holding the bow moves right left up down because your body gets compressed and you push against it. when the bow is heavier it pulls down more (gravity) but a heavier object is harder to move so left right and up are easier to control. you can test it out your self tape a laser to your bow and point it at a wall and pull it back. then do the same but with an additional weight taped to the bow. when you observe the laser it will move less with weights.
thanks for reading my gibberish who ever got to the end
I'd like to point out that Mongols used a very similar style bow while on horseback. So did the "sipahi" who were light cavalry in the Ottoman Empire. So the "horsebow" probably coming from those examples.
Shad: talking about how the tip of the bow was europian.
Also Shad: shows pictures of bow tips very similar to hungarian bow tips...
And the Magyars were originally horse archers from the central Asian steppe. The recurve/composite bow as we know it is absolutely Asian in origin. Just because the Romans and Medieval Europeans used it doesn't mean it's not Asian in origin
@@rohunagarwal6497 I mean technically we could argue about the assiriran and scytian bows origin since they show up in roman and medivevil sources some of them originating from Byzantine but even those sources most likely are after the huns coming to Rome or from the roman expansion where the romans went toward the Karpatian Basin. Also the Bizantian empire was hiring different tribes of horse archers since they were good enough to give trouble to the empire. so yeah
Neat video! Just finished the book "Shadow of the Conquerer" and was very pleased by the story, the magic, the setting, and the attention to details in the world. Good read!
As a DM, my takeaway is to make 4 categories of bows for my players:
Training bow: 1d4 piercing damage
Light bow: 1d6 piercing damage
Warbow: 1d8 piercing damage
Heavy warbow: 1d10 piercing damage, but uses the strength stat, not dex.
With recurve and longbow options for both.
Too bad nobody plays ranger in 5e...
You know rangers aren't the only ones that use bows.
I would, if I had a group.
Not even after Tasha's? Because Rangers seem pretty cool now. I have this idea for a dhampir Swarmkeeper Ranger whose swarm is either bats or just ominous shadows floating around him. I was thinking of going melee focused though, using the Druidic Warrior fighting style to grab Shillelagh so I can focus on WIS.
If you care about balance, this system is a super buff to strength builds. Strength builds are usually better than dexterity ones because of higher base damage and access to heavy armor, but they also struggle with range. This system not only takes that weakness away, it makes them superior to dexterity builds on doing that as well. I'm also not 100% sure, but I suspect that system would also allow barbarians to shoot while raging, which is super huge for them. Of course, balance isn't everything but in case you or your players care about it.
I'm playing a ranger in a campaign now!
Funnily enough Skyrim actually was pretty acurate with their bows. having a recurv bow be better than a long bow. Even the 2 best bows in Skyrim where: 1 recurv and a short bow. Auriel's bow being a short recurv bow. And the nightingale bow being a long recurved bow. Which is kinda pretty funny because skyrim isn't the most hystorical acurate game ever made.
They probably did it cause recurve bows look cooler
@@davidspring4003 yea probably true, recurve bows definitely tend to look nicer and more advanced than just a regular old longbow
@@Dell-ol6hb but hey, if cool means more accurate, that's even better, right?
@@davidspring4003 lol, I think the longbow looks cooler!
@@neofd3223 to each their own, but I'm just offering the most likely explanation for why the game that gives vikings horned helmets has recurve bows be the best bows.
Seeing shad quickly pull two 110# bows while i can barely pull a 65# one.... to full draw no less.... damn dude you're a beast
Don't pull the string, push the staff. I'm like super fit, Judoka, strong back and shoulders, but can only pull the 60-65# category, the Krimean Tartar bow I took to tournaments was only 42# and I changed to a 33# Scythian bow for recreational shooting(also have one with 24#). A few days ago, I found a quote from an English king. His father taught him how to push his whole weight into the bow, allowing him to use heavier and heavier ones. I tried this, and man, this feels like cheating! The strain on the finger joints is the same, and with my Ehler-Danlos-syndrome, I probably need a tab or glove, but drawing my heavier bows is really easy now. For the first time, I think 100#+ is possible for me. But budget short bows(I shoot Flagella Dei) end at 50# or 60#, so I guess I'll just stay in that range.
The bow literally no one forgot. It's in every video game and TV show set in the medieval period Shad.
Yeah, I think that "forgot/forgotten" is not the best choice of words for this one. It's definitely not as popular as the longbow, but certainly not forgotten.
Do not know why but it says "This video is unavailable on this device" i am on andriod
In regard to composite bows in wetter climates,
From "War Bows" by Mike Loades, "There is a common misconception that composite bows were not popular in Western Europe because their performance would have been too adversely affected by the damp climate. However, when properly sealed, they thrived not only in the considerably wetter climates of Asia; composite bows, in the form of the bows for crossbows, proliferated throughout Europe."
Apparently, at the time of writing he was also under the impression there weren't many recurves/composites (other than crossbows) in Europe. In other parts of the book he mentions that one of the final steps in building these types of bows was to apply some type of water resistant/proof coating, like a lacquer or something. There is further treatment that indicates the composite bow would need care and attention when dealing with temperature extremes, such as sleeping with your bow to keep it warm, actually manipulating it in ways, like bow massage, to combat any torsional changes or other warping, etc.
It seems the glues involved required long durations to set, so the composite bows staves would take much longer to build, 2 years by Loades' estimation. This would make them more expensive, and given the meticulous care required, perhaps demanded a more professional class of fighter? A typical self longbow, on the other hand, could be made in a year or less, most of which is simply the curing of the wood. Could it be that the longbow was more convenient for mass mobilizations of the civilian population on account of the bow holding its shape in storage, having less maintenance needs, and being cheaper/quicker to produce?
The name Byzantine arrives well after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans with the first usage in 1555 and not really adopted popularly until the 1800s. It was not a contemporary name used for the Eastern Roman empire who always just called themselves the Roman empire and was known as such to everyone else apart from some in the west who called them the Empire of the Greeks because of disputes over claiming that the HRE was the real Roman successor.
Came to the comments to say this exact thing
Yeah it's really annoying that the HRE managed to get that copyright before the Roman empire despite the latter being older
I came here for the same too haha you beat me to it.
Obligatory "HRE was not Roman, not really an empire, and wasn't particularly holy." :P
Yep. The Roman Empire never renamed themselves as the Byzantine Empire and never changed the name of their capitol to Byzantium.
These are ahistorical influences from post 1453 German scholars in the Holy Roman Empire who sought to distance the meaning of Rome away from the Roman Empire after its final collapse.
Modern historians use the term to distinguish between antiquity and post antiquity Rome and, because much of modern history has its origins in German influenced universities from after the fall of the Roman Empire.
Anyone else suddenly getting blocked from watching this video?
Don't you use a thumb ring to protect your digits when doing a thumb draw especially with high poundage like finger guards/gloves for other styles
Could it be possible that the Romans adopted the recurve through interactions with the Scythians or Parthians?
The Romans were really big on adopting superior tech from their enemies, after all.
As for "Medieval" recurves, I'd say Huns, since the G*rms were under Attila's thumb for quite awhile.
They may have but the Scythian we're not Asians if that what your trying to say. The Scythian had light skin and red hair.
What race has to do with anything in this context?
@@anglosaxon1019 that it is not relevant
Hey Shad! A question to you about DUNE as to an expert: If a person is used to fighting in a shield, against opponents who also utilize shields, where they do not mind fast cuts and thrusts (which will be deadly in shield-less fight), wouldn't they be rubbish in shield-less fights? as they have been training whole their lives to not mind this thrusts and cuts, when it will be the paramount danger fighting "naked"? Spoilers below:
In Dune we see Paul defeating one of the Fremen quite easily ("toying" even with him as he doesn't want to kill him) after crossing an alien planet, under huge stress and lack of food and water, in desert he defeats elite fighter, with a bone knife which is also new for him (before he had metal blades). Seems like a stretch to me.
maybe they train shield-less fighting as well, granted this "division of specialization" should have harmed a bit
Two words: He is the CHOSEN ONE!
I think it's the difference of being trained at all. That's the point in the whole book: Fremen were amazing fighters, but only by natural selection. What Paul adds to them is modern training. And so he made them more powerful.
Plus: Paul himself was trained as a duelist. 1vs1
read the book. Paul was good at defending but realized that he couldn't win due to his shield training. He only won after adjusting his offensive style.
You’ve also got to remember, Paul’s wearing the strongest armour of all…… plot armour
Not just dungeons and dragons, in every game I've ever played that has both longbows and shortbows, the shortbow is weaker and has less range than the long bow.
"It's not the size if it, it's the poundage"
When it comes to poundage, I'll take the advice of a man with 4 (5?) kids.
One day, his heirs shall inherit the Shadlands, and raise their own castles with many machicolations!
I love how you're comparing the "myths" rpg and tactical games have imposed upon history.
One of my major annoyances is the fact that most games etc tend to put dexterity as a major stat for archers. Whilst in fact to even draw the bow (arguably the most important step in attempting to fire an arrow) you need quite an amount of strength, especially with (war)bows of a higher poundage. Especially when having to do it repeatedly.
And on the other hand one can even argue that dexterity is at least as important (if not more) as strength for a warrior in order to even use weapons effectively in a fight. Because what good is being able to lift a weapon if you can't handle it properly and quick enough to match your opponent.
For a bow, it would probably make sense to say that strength limits the power of the bow you can use, while dexterity affects your aim. You can probably say the same about melee weapons, but there strength would also affect power to some degree. Probably more for tip-heavy weapons, and less for swords. But either way, strength requirements would be higher for bows than probably any other weapon (assuming war bows, not hunting bows).
@@AnotherDuck 2nd edition Ad&d did this by having bows that required certain strengths to use.
even before that period... the ancient Greek goddess of hunting Artemis [you may know her by the name the Romans used "'Diana'' ] is often depicted holding this type of bow...
so yea!... it's old European... the reason the long bow overshadows it is simplicity... easy for everyone to make one and train for war while feeding his family...
Eh, longbows overshadow recurves only due the marketing power of English culture
Hey Shad, how are your health problems? I remember you saying you couldn’t strain yourself much. It looks like you’re getting better so I’m happy for that. Great video and I hope you continue to do well.
He's lost a fair amount of weight, it's visible in his face if you compare this video to a video from two years ago. He also said in his videos that he had surgery to alleviate his obstructive sleep apnea and now he can get a solid night of sleep and good sleep does wonders for health.
@@Geno2021 My tought exactly, he is lookin beter than ever.
The "prominence" of the longbow is purely an anglo-centric view of history. Britain made the longbow legendary but people forget that the Huns, Turks, Hungarians, and Mongolians were absolutely devastating with recurve bows.
And besides the English longbow there are so many more types of bow variants used over the millennia all over the world and also in Europe.
@@carlc.4714 True too. I think that asymmetrical bow that Samurai used would definitely classify as long.
I would agree with you on most of those, but I really don't think people "forget" about Mongolian archers. They are extremely well covered by historians.
I agree. I don’t want to be rude but honestly as a Hungarian person I think straight (mostly english) longbows are just pieces of wood compared to curved reflex bows. I am not talking about strength, just wanted to mention the level of technology and specialism.
I really think, that the Longbow is especially famous in england and became famous in alot of english speaking countries, since a lot of english historians only look at english history, but kinda sell it as european history. Maybe its also due to the youtubers that make videos about it and the larp and co. communities, that the idea of the longbow being THE medieval bow came to be, at least in Shads head. I myself didnt even know of the longbow as a non islanders bow until not too long ago. As a kid, that loved history, I mainly knew about the recuve/composite bows and the straight bows and the weaker decurve bows, that were mainly used as hunting bows. So for me the longbow was kind of the forgotten medieval bow, while the recurve bow was the primary medieval bow. And I think its similar for alot of people that are from middle/eastern/south-eastern europe and not from england, Ireland and france, or some of the english colonies that had no real medieval history, aside the natives history, like the us and austrailia. But all in all, great video. 👍
In eastern europe they are just called, bow. That's it, it is and always was the bow by default. And you are right they were both used on foot and on horseback as well.
Same for asia minor and further east.
There are a bunch of us in Oregon who use a thumb draw, and we have a running debate about what we should properly call the "Horse Bows" that we use. Horse bow is a misnomer, because many of them can't properly be used from horseback (Manchu bows can be almost as tall as longbow), but "Asian recurve" doesn't fit either, because they weren't used exclusively in Asia. "Recurve" just conjures up images of Fred Bear bows in the modern mind, and "short bow" is a general catchall term for any bow that isn't within a few inches of the user's height. "Saddle bow" has the same problem as horse bow. Nine times out of ten, we just sidestep the problem by referring to each bow by it's specific type (ex. last night I was using a Turkish bow), but sometimes we find ourselves in a situation wherein we just need to come up with some kind of categorical name that the average layperson will immediately recognize. The best that we've been able to come up with is "composite Asiatic recurve," but that's a heck of a mouthful. One day, someone will come up with or discover the perfect name, but until that day comes, know that many people share your frustration.
Yeah I understand it drives me crazy trying to give them a proper label and all I can suggest is possibly calling them ARC Bows which is just an aberration of your saying of Composite Asiatic Recurve (I changed the words around mainly for it to have a better ring to it)
But besides that I can't wait for it to getter a proper name that won't be a misnomer
No problem with the name horsebow, only the the horse lords from the steppe used this bow on horseback noone else in history
Traditional (old world) composite
@@GM-os6fo Manchu bows(which are very similar to the one Shad showing) were used by foot soliders mainly...
@@GM-os6fo there are depictions of recurve bows in Ancient Greece art. Korean traditional bow is recurved too, and used by infantry. China also has recurve bows used by infantry. Persia as well.
they are most common in the steppes (Huns, Turks, Magyar...), but not exclusive to them.
Great video, Shad, and loved how many West European Medieval primary sources/images you included in the video to show how widespread their use was. As to why these more expensive and sophisticated bows weren't more common in the British Isles compared to the long/self bow, was probably due to how much cheaper and easier to make the latter type were, and therefore much easier for even the poorest peasants to acquire, and learn to shoot from childhood. In the case of serious reenactment/living history applications, virtually all of the replicas on the market today, (including your short recurve bow presented here), is that the fiberglass composite ones are too flat/thin to resemble all of the surviving original examples, or those depicted in contemporary Medieval art I am familiar with. They all appear thicker and have more of a "D" profile just as we see in all wood, self bows, probably because modern laminates like fiberglass are stronger than the original horn, and therefore thinner. I have several short recurve bows much like yours, which I acquired in Hungary for our Roman living history group, but made them look more authentic by thickening them with flexible cork to the appearance of an 300 plus year old Moghul Indian recurve bow made with real horn and sinew. As many of these were covered in leather or parchment, this will hide the cork or other flexible material used to beef up the fiberglass bow to an authentic appearance. The fact that the preponderance of Medieval reenactors depicting bowmen own longbows may not so much be due to their ignorance of the widespread use of short recurve bows in Medieval times, but simply due to their desire to depict English longbowmen, and it being far easier to acquire an all wooden, classic "longbow" than a realistic replica of a Medieval recurve bow. As nice as your 110 pound recurve bow is, as soon as I saw it in this presentation, that judging by its appearance, and my owning several very much like it, I was sure it had to be a fiberglass one before you said it was.
Hungarian Style Recurves are fairly available too. I shoot a 60# and my brother has a 75# bow, both are Hungarian style. The Hungarian style is very similar to what you have there, the ends are pointy on ours, but the functional elements are shaped very similar to your bow. Also, I'm glad that your covering this. Great content, keep going. I would love to see you cover some of the different types of short bows. There are small differences in their construction, but they can have pretty large effects on how they shoot. A bow like yours will have a smooth release, but something like the Mongolian Style has bridges which cause them to shoot differently. You use them the same way, but the differences are interesting.
BUT HUNGARIAN ARE MIXED PEOPLE THOUGH....YOU GUYS ARE A MIXED OF TURKIC AND SLAVIC PEOPLE SO TECHNICALLY YOU GUYS ARE ASIATIC XD.
My god, thanks for this video and the Historical Archery shout out, i was creating my RPG system and got stuck in the ranged combat section with bows and other stuff, this video helped me a LOT!
People thinks the longbow is the one and only European medieval bow ??
Ranger's Apprentice in the book series makes a point of demonstrating the recurve bow and the differences/similarities between it and a long bow.
Good to see another rangers apprentice reader out in the wild
Great series, got me to finally pick up archery.
dude so many rangers apprentice fans in the comments haha
I gotta admire the extensiveness of Shad's research. That was a lot of historical artwork, probably even a new record for the channel.
And I am thankful for his research. His work makes valuable information accessible to the masses.
He creates opportunities to free people from the vile grasp of ignorance.
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo lol wtf
I run WFRP, in that ranged weapons have an "Effective Strength" in a similar range to the strength of the characters.
For me it makes sense that if a character purchases a bow, they would get the maximum strength they cpuld handle without a serious penalty to accuracy, so a S3 character would buy an ES3 bow, an S2 gets an ES2.
If an S4 character uses an ES3 bow, it remains at ES3, but an S3 character using an ES4 bow would get a -20 nerf to accuracy and couldn't even use an ES5 bow and so on.
I avoid dealing with the details of poundage exactly because it has no mechanical benefit and for range I just abstract the games rules for short/normal/longbow into Str Ranges.
I leave Elf Bows alone for reasons of assuming they have powerful bows that can be used by any normal Elf, because they are magical creatures and slings get just a modified ES to whatever Str the character is.
Warhammer is pretty intuitive, but that is basically D&D 3rd ed's composite bow rules, which you could reskin as 'longbow x or y'.
If I were making my own game system, I'd probably just have an 'archery skill' which determines what sort of bow the character can shoot.
The muscles an archer uses aren't the same as those used to lift, wrestle, punch, etc. (and each of those are different muscles!), so this would seem a reasonable enough abstraction to me.
This topic is realy close to my heart. I wanna do traditional medieval european archery, but i do not like english long bow...so...I was searching about this topic by myself, because nobody was able to help me find something about short bows in medieval europe. And then a fell in love with hungarian bows. Yes i know that Huns and Mayars were asian tribes, but Hungarians in medieval times still used this type of bow and man, what a great bow it is. I totaly agree that short bows have its place in medieval european archery.
Magyars are just as Asian as Germans, most current Europeans were the vassals the Huns who are the ancestors of the Magyars, some exceptions are the Celts, who were here before, but the others were settled when Attila defeated Rome and he needed someone to take care of the conquered lands.
Hungarian here, I'm actually surprised that these bows are considered lost in medieval reenactment. They're absolutely integral to our culture -- now that might just be because one of the very few successful times in Hungarian history was when our ancestors kicked most of Europe's ass with these, luring the enemy in on horseback and then shooting backwards at them, but with those legends around, anyone doing any form of historical archery here pretty much defaults to recurve bows. And that was a bit before 1000 AD, with a large chunk of the medieval period still ahead, I'd be very surprised if these bows just completely vanished for the next five centuries.
Possibly it's because Shad lives in Australia, i.e. part of the English speaking world. Unless we specifically go digging for information, all we ever hear in popular culture and popular history shows/books etc here is something along the lines of "English/Welsh Longbow iz da bestest!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!11!!!" And to be fair, the vast majority of people aren't historians and don't have the time, knowledge or motivation to even consider challenging this belief.
I think that really goes to show how much of a role culture plays. In more western European especially English-speaking cultures, the decurve longbow is much more prominent due to the effects of the English longbow and how it has permeated media and historical accounts,
That is because the nations west of Hungary and Poland tend to have the most projection power as to what most people view as history, particularly England and France and America. I do know that it is a fairly well know weapon among Polish Hussar reenactors as even after guns were adopted the bow was still seen as a fashion accessory.
it's bizarre that this has to be a topic. im not even into d&d & not a history buff (or even an archer!) but the idea that a recurve is "forgotten," & the benefits/differences/where it was geographically used historically isn't common knowledge has me flabbergasted. i've never talked to anyone about bows that hasn't known all this since they were like 8 🤷♀️
Yeah, same lol.
Breath of the Wild player sees thumbnail: "hey, it's the Phrenic Bow!"
I also think that longbow has a psychological factor as well, because people can rationalize all they want even nowadays with smaller but more efficient weapons versus larger show-offs. The fact that a longbow is a HUGE weapon, and a line of longbowmen is truly a more intimidating sight than the smaller recurves, even if statistically they might be the exact opposites in their performance! Psychology is a strong weapon, often the strongest!
But the bowmen were often behind infantry which would significantly reduce the intimidation factor
I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, if your enemy is afraid of you, they're more likely to retreat. However, if you're enemy underestimates you, then they are more likely to make a potentially war ending mistake.
"H-h-h-have you seen how much wood is in that m-m-m-mans hand...? Look how *thick and long it is....."*
Innuendos aside, I think you're going a bit far on that. At most combat ranges, in battle conditions, you're probably not even going to be able to tell the difference between a bunch of guys carrying longbows and a bunch of guys carrying shorter bows. I feel like your logic could also be applied to comparing longbows and crossbows, and I'm confident in saying that it doesn't check out for that comparison
@@grognakthedestroyerattorne3211 Be careful with that assumption. My understanding is that there's actually a lot of uncertainty on how archers were used. There's this iconic hollywood image of archers firing at long ranges, but we have reason to think that the main bulk of arrows loosed may have been at closer ranges. The art tends to show archers shooting at low elevations (apart from when attacking in a siege), and it also makes sense to save your arrows for when you know you can hit and have maximum effect. But overall, we don't seem to really know as of now
@@Warrior-Of-Virtue As Sun Tzu once said "Appear strong when you are weak, and weak when you are strong"
Time didn't forget - west world forgot. In Poland for example many archers use those and everyone having basic knowledge about archery knows what a recurve bow is.
Not even "west", just the anglosphere
Just a quick historical point shad, though I'm sure its was a slip of the tongue. Constantinople didn't change its name to byzantium and the people therein didn't call themselves byzantines, as far as they were concerned their land was Rome and they were Romans. Think of it like this, if London and the South of England were taken over by the French, the people in the North of England would still be English and live in England. Byzantium was the name of the pre-roman Greek settlement that Constantinople was built upon. The "Byzantine empire" was a name assigned to that area and its people by modern era historians to distinguish it from classical Rome, but I think its actually more confusing and prefer to simply call it Eastern-Rome.
Would be a fascinating area and point in history for you to make some vids on actually, their armour and warfare is particularly interesting as it seems to be European at heart but with a near Eastern aesthetic.
but you got the direction wrong. Byzantium was the original settlement that existed even before "year 1" and Constantinople was officially given as the new name of the imperial capital BY Emperor Constantine around 350 CE.
The rest is very complicated with different backgrounds for latin and greek names and various uses, just like an emperor might be Augustus, Caesar, Imperator, Basileus or twenty other titles, the empire and it's main seat of power also were called different things by different groups for different times.
@@Ugly_German_Truths
What did I get wrong? I said byzantium was the Greek pre roman settlement?
@@cablea6077 You said Constantinople changed to Byzantium (but not truly as both stayed "Rome") where it was definitely the other way round with Byzantium the older name
Thought so
And there was also a city called Third Rome. It's name is Moscow...
24:25 Manchu bows were not "short recurves." They were quite long, often a bit over 5ft strung.
Regarding efficacy & power, keep in mind that quality is key. The available evidence does indicate that good-quality shorter composite recurves provide some additional kinetic energy at any give draw weight compared with good-quality yew longbows. A poorly made shorter composite recurve might perform worse than a well-made yew longbow. Also, preliminary testing shows that Manchu-style large composite recurve bows, with big siyahs, perform much better than yew longbows with heavy arrows. (Again, comparing at good quality.) In theory, English archers could have hit harder with Manchu-style bows. Shorter composite recurves, like traditional Turkish bows, excel at shooting light arrows high velocity. They're considerably better at this than yew longbows.
Regarding weather, it seems like it was possible to keep horn-&-sinew bows & arrows dry & in prime condition in wet climates, but that this required a lot of care & attention. Horn crossbow prods did see widespread use across Europe, but its possible that they were easier to protect from moisture than horn-&-sinew bows.
Your comment is full of a series of claims that are unsubstantiated. I think you're taking the fact that there *may have been* and currently are Manchu bows examples over 5' in length as giving you permission to claim "they were quite long" as if it was the standard [during the Medieval Era] when the propensity of information would indicate that they were not. This is born out by the lack of surviving examples of large Manchu bows (vs a comparative number of small bows), the lack of evidence in surviving artwork and historic text from the time that they were as large (let alone larger) as 5', and the impracticality of a people of shorter stature using bows that long. As with all issues involving historic weapons, there were likely exceptions. There were exceptions in the size of people and there were almost certainly some exceptionally large people who used weapons customized to them. Exceptions, however, don't make the rule, and it is patently inaccurate to claim Manchu bows as large as 5' were commonplace.
There is no "testing" of historically accurate medieval Manchu bows (because no surviving example has been in good enough condition to be accurately replicated) vs a medieval English longbow to definitively demonstrate that Manchu bows would have been more effective or more powerful. There are numerous tests of varying styles of bow construction that demonstrate the hypothetical advantages and disadvantages of each particular style and potential if built with modern tools, tech, and materials. This is not the same as a test of historically accurate comparisons.
The issue of European use of self bows and long bows being more common vs composite bows has simply been acknowledged as common knowledge among historians and military experts as an issue of weather and climate. There is no definitive argument. Historic sources addressing the issue are thin. The assumption of durability based on climate differences is basically a practical one based on the limited available knowledge.
Just as likely an influence on the types of bows used is the availability of resources and familiarity with them. Northwestern Europeans learned to utilize what they had readily available, as did the Mongols, Manchurians, Turks, etc. The fact that Welsh/English/Scandinavian longbow usage prevailed and gained popularity at the time over recurve and composite bows in Western and Northern Europe - and they were familiar enough to Europeans to make practical comparisons - testifies to some sort of utility and/or strategic advantage perceived by those who were able to make appropriate comparisons. Recurve and composite bows continued to be more popular in the Mediterranean, Spain, and Southeastern Europe. The popularity of crossbows seemed to have eclipse all 'vertical' bows in popularity everywhere in Europe except in the British Isles, before gunpowder weapons eclipsed the use of bows altogether. The progression of changes reflects perceived utility rather than impractical dogma being the driving motivation for weapon of choice. When gunpowder weapons proved to be a definitively superior weapon choice for the English, the switch was made.
The reason for the popularity of self bows is self evident. They're easy to construct and effective enough for hunting. That they could be used as a weapon of warfare, if less effective than purpose-made bows for warfare, was secondary to their practicality as a tool for hunting.
What is a definitive historic fact is that composite bows were far less popular in Western and Northern Europe than in dryer climates south and east of the region. It is highly unlikely (to the point of absurdity) that composite bows would have been eschewed in favor of self and/or longbows or simple composition recurve bows if composite bows could've been proved better.
The "effectiveness" of a weapon is completely relative. What it costs, how it is used, who it is used against, and under what conditions it is used are all important factors. Just as the conditions the English endured heavily influenced their use of the longbow, so did the conditions of other peoples, including the Turks and Mongols. What was ideal for them was unlikely universally ideal for everyone else.
Besides urging you to be more diligent in vetting historic information before making claims, I urge you to do a better job reasoning out comparisons before proclaiming that one historic item or method was better or more effective.
@@merlball8520 @Merl Ball hey, just wanted to jump on the manchu bow camp trian wagon, as a practicing archer, and a historian to boot, I'm sure all archers who shot both bows agree that there is no question on which is currently more efficient with heavy arrows. A modern made manchu designs beats a modern made longbow every time, in every aspect. Manchu design is one of the best, if not the best bow design developed for heavy arrows. As far as I understand you are not claiming otherwise, just trying to point out that we lack evidence for an accurate comparison between the two during medieval times, and this is somewhat true because earliest manchu bows we have left I think are from around 1630s however there are remnants of older arrows and arrow heads for the thing. And we definitely have artwork depicting what are later to become the manchu bows as early as the 12-13th century. However there are many replicas made in North China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan using historic tools and materials and on average they either perform on par, or outright outperform their modern material counterparts in terms of doing what they are designed to do, fling big heavy arrows (40-65grams, 80-115cm) over long distances. I think the main point that needs to be made, and that is not being made on behalf of the right angled siyah bows with stiff string bridges (manchu design), is the one of it's place in culture and priority. The longbow (self/bare bow) is your weapon of the peasant, cheap, most efficient for it's price, if broken or mistreated are replaceable. They are your AK-47 of the medieval times get the job done and are cheap, reliable, replaceable, powerful. Most recurve bows from the asiatic countries are also weapons of war and hunting, but unlike the longbows are also symbols of status and power. They can be compared to how medieval Europe went to town on improving their swords and longswords, which were a great status and power symbol just like bows for the steppe people among others. As a result of this opposite approaches, bow making in many countries had much greater development and consistency, as it paid well and was a very respected high end job. With emperor's and Khans proudly shooting the works of art of their artisans. This difference in approach is key to the difference. You don't compare a rusty trusty AK-47 to modern state of the art assault rifles. Yes they both will kill, yes if you get hit by either you won't really care, but if two marksmen meet each other in a sporting competition, be that competition on accuracy/distance/rate of fire, I am certain given the choice and having no national prejudice both would pick the manchu bow to win. I find the entire comparison between the two as weapons of war silly, you can't compare a "500 dollar AK" to a "15000 dollar assault rifle complex". They are in different leagues to begin with. Different places in society, vastly different complexities of putting together, and as a result are two very different pieces of equipment. (P.S. the big problem with Manchus was the twist you got at high poundages, so just like with an expensive high tech modern rifle, you had to care of your dear bow for it not let you down when it's most needed, even though archers could fix broken siyahs themselves in field conditions, they were the ones succeptable to breaking, it still took a couple of days, and would be more then an inconvience if that happened on the eve of battle or a big hunt)
And I'm not saying that all manchu bows were expensive works of art. I am trying to say that with such emphasis on bow building and development, were you even had entire empires decreeing the manchu bow be put as the bow of choice, opening thousands of bowyers and spreading this unique art of bow building enmass, at the end you got an amazingly streamlined design that remains unmatched for heavy arrow shooting until this day. And as a result of this difference in culture of bow development your every day early Ming soldier on the field, marching as an archer in the emperor's army, would get on average a much better bow, then his counter part in late medieval England.
Since when longbow is "the medieval bow" ? Longbow is just a large stick for those, who can't make a real bow
Pff "think of the medieval archery" ... somehow in my case images that come to mind are russian, byzantine, mongol, muslim etc mounted archers with recurve bows
That intro reminds me of that Conan book I read back in the day where some steppe horse archers were impressed that he strung a two-man bow himself.
May be older than medieval too. In the odyssey it is suspected that oddysious's bow was a recurve bow and needed a specific method to string it and was incredibly difficult to pull relative to its size.
It's not even maybe, it's as close to certain as it can be in regards to the technologies required. Bows are a prehistoric technology. Ötzi was found with a work in progress yew bow stave.
Oh it's almost certainly a recurve bow. Odyssyos is a traveller, he goes all over the place and one place he's known to have gone is up into the black sea. That means that almost 100% chance he would have come into contact with the Scyth, who dominated that area for hundreds of years. The Scyth, being the inventors of the recurve bow, probably had them around this time and it's not too unreasonable to assume that Odyssyos bought one as a curiosity and learned how to use it.
@@moritamikamikara3879 There is also a mesopotamian tombstone dating from the 23rd century BC depicting a composite bow.
@@arnaudpascal1691 Huh, so maybe even older than the Scyth. Damn.
Well, in that case I'll have to clarify that although the Scyth did not invent the recurve bow, they were prolific users of it.
@@moritamikamikara3879 I did not mean to contradict you because I suppose it's a matter of shaping. Very early depictions of bows (-2000 and before) as well as bow remains from egyptian tombs (-1000 and before) are interpreted as composite bows, but they don't have the "classic" shape such as the present video. I just meant to add that if the present video's bow design is similar the scythes of old, differently shaped horn and sinew bows also existed. My point was to add that there is plentiful evidence and findings showing that bows are an old and stable tech.
Thanks Shad for this video. From Central and North Eastern European perspective, from what I've seen, period artwork depicts only short, mostly re-curve bows and crossbows. That is why longbows always seemed rather odd and stereotypical British Isle thing, like tartan kilts.
Depends on where you live i guess.
Here in Hungary recurve bow are anything but forgotten. Even in the early gunpowder era during the ottoman-habsburg wars, it was still in use by light cavalry.
...and since my fellow countrymen are here in europe since more than a millenia, it would be foolish to assume that we somehow kept the technology secret.
@Shadevirsity speaking of Longbow's advantages: I wonder if ease of storage was a major issue given that an unstrung Longbow is basically a wooden stick.
Yes!! I just had my traditional recurve bow out today and had so much fun showing off my terrible archery to my sons haha. Also once you get that stringing technique down you feel so ba every time you string it:) Thanks for this video and all you do Shad!
-Dan
The Romans were great engineers, it makes sense they would use a more mechanically efficient bow
Thank you shad for talking about this
they went for efficiency not cost or manufacturing speed. These are the guys that made a mobile field ballista that required a metal frame, after all.
@@thekaxmax The Romans were awesome
roman recurve bows were actually scythian and hunnic bows. They either hired scythian and hunnic mercenaries or bought hornbows from them. Have evience for both of these.
@@marcelllovas1465 They also had Syrian archers who used reflex bows.
Yes Romans were great engineers "Marcus, man the Ballista".
The recurve bow is mentioned in the Old Testament,then again the people who think it is from Asia and was a later import probably never heard of The Byzantines,who seem to have been left out of history books.Northwest Native Americans also apparently had recurve bows,they seem to have been the most advanced woodworkers,while other tribes like Plains Tribes had othertypes of bows and Rocky Mountain tribes had very powerful composite bows capable of taking down Bison.
I could be remembering it incorrectly, but wasn't Odysseus' bow a recurve that could only be used by the strongest of warriors?
The Compound bow has been used for thousands of years. It was a well known technology and no surprise it's mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, understand that the Old Testament was written during "Babylonian Captivity" around 600 BC. The scholars of Judah had access to the archives of the Babylonian Empire, dating back thousands of years earlier to the Mother Civilization of Sumeria. They borrowed a lot: Flood stories, Eden, Gilgamesh = Samson, Angels = Annunaki, etc.
The Ancient Egyptians adopted the Hyksos compound bow around 1500 BC. When you combined the Hyksos compound bow and the light, but highly maneuverable Egyptian chariot, you had a deadly combination which wasn't surpassed until mounted horse archers.
@@davidokinsky114 Yes. Archery started 70,000 years ago and the recurved Compound Bow existed at least 4100 years ago. So, it wouldn't be far fetched to say that the Achaeans during the Trojan War had compound bows and probably simple bows as well.
I saw a recent video of Lars Andersen demonstrating fast fire rate using Comanche archery style where several arrows are held together on the left side of the bow and fired from the left side while maintaining high accuracy, even hanging on the side of horseback. Have you tried this style, and also are there any medieval depictions similar to the Comanche archery style?
That's the first ever bow you get when you start playing diablo 1 as a rogue. It has 1-1 damage.
They give you a kid traning bow to start out :D
Shad, you have to check out Hungarian bows and Hungarian Medieval in general, bc from our perspective Curved bow was the main thing ..and horse shooting tactics and stuff.
To find out my favorite book series “Rangers Apprentice” taught me accurate information about Bows. The problem is he plays into the “Viking” horn helmet myth as well as calling a round shield and Buckler.
But hey, it’s technically a kids book so I think a little flare can’t hurt.
But they used normal knives as throwing knives :( also claimed that bow is more precise (and generally better in arms of trained warrior) than crossbow.
Also the bad reputation and disrespect for the rangers claimed to exist in first book is non-existent to the point that in 8 (?) Will, the ranger, is more known and respected by common folks from random distant Village that the knight (already should've been more respected) who killed the main enemy of the kingdom (he should be a national hero) as a teen (legends should've been created about him!). Yet it's "Famous Will Treaty who did this Famous Treaty, also some knight."
@@a.w.4708 @A. W. I think you're misremembering the books pretty hard here. The books were very clear that throwing knives are different than normal knives, and that they were preferable. The Rangers didn't have so much of a bad reputation as much as there being a mysterious air that lent itself to superstition. This was clear throughout the books.
Lastly, the crossbow has advantages and disadvantages to it compared to the longbow. The Rangers preferred the longbow because it had a much better firing rate, a much longer accurate range, and because it was quieter.
@@matthewchamberlain2953 well, maybe... But I remember quite well my reaction when I red about Will being more recognisable among random people than Horace, the literal defeater of the most direct enemy of Araluen. Even looking at real world (since the Universe is really, really inspired by it): which people were more recognised in folklore: Brave knights who defeated mighty enemies of the kingdom or the signers of treaties? In Araluen it appears that it is the later. And honestly I've never seen in books this "they are a bit scary, we don't trust them" attitude towards Rangers and I am sure it was said to exist in first book.
"This video is unavailable on this device." Gj youtube
Update: Video works again
I really needed this video to get me out my present mood. Thank you for the good timing shad I love you guys.
Watching longbow videos keeps mah depression away, my dude.
I recently revealed the genders of my two girlfriends. It got a lot of hate and now has 30 times more dislikes than likes. I am really sad that people can be so mean. Sorry for using your comment to talk about my problems, dear see
But... but most of Asiatic bows were medieval from Hungarian, Bulgarian, Avar, Mongolian, Tatar, Turkish... :D And Serbian bow you ordered might have been actually influenced by Turkish bows. Scythian bow is a total disconnection to medieval Europe - way too specific to Scytho-Sauromatian bows. Mediterranean draw is fine but these bows kicks better when thumb drawn. And use a thumb ring for this 😉
Funny thing is that kind of bow is literally famous because of Cupid
Yes, the flying little shat that does trickshots to make humans' hormones go wild
Well, almost. Some people forget.. ruclips.net/video/jbjcO0-5Bw0/видео.html
As an archer and an historian, I can say with confidence that recurve bows had a HUGE impact on European history! From the ancient Ayrians (Medes) and their opponents the Byzantine Romans (among others), to Mongolian horse archers, to Huns, to Eastern Europeans (those nations most influenced by the aforementioned peoples), the recurve has repeatedly demonstrated its lethality on the field of battle. Far from being "forgotten," these bows remain widely popular even to this day.
Also, I want to dispel a myth about so-called "strength bows": There simply ain't no such thing! Bows come in a variety of pulls and weights (eg, "strengths"). And while it is possible to have them custom-made for specific weights, historically, they have been made with the strength of the archer in mind, the military needs of the nations/cultures making them, and the use they were meant to be put to (that is, military "war bows" were typically stronger, as they had to penetrate that pesky armor stuff). That said, if an exceptional individual came along like Odysseus, he'd definitely have a bow only that individual could pull. (I should point out that his son, Telemachus, could almost pull that monster! Certainly someone like Aias/Ajax the greater would have no problem doing so.)
So for ages, I've incorporated Strength to hit and damage bonuses into my campaigns for missile weapons that involved an element of strength to use them well...and penalties for those who are not strong enough to use them (the stronger the bow, the faster the arrow, the flatter the trajectory; the greater the strength of the bow, the greater the damage, ergo...). Base damage remains the same as listed in the 2nd Edition Players Handbook, modified for armor type, cover, range, etc...
Indeed, the Eastern European history is only mentioning this tyoe of bow as the standard war bow for the entire Medieval era. Used by everyone from Tatars, Turks, Huns to Slavs, Vlachs, Serbs. They were the standard bow of war and no one here seem to complain about them or demand biggeror stronger bows.
I think what it is meant by strenght bow is a bow not ment to be shot but to test your strenght. Specially since the design of such bows is inneficient. If I remember correctly some were used to pass chinese martial examinations of strenght and control. The idea being if you can handle this ridiculously heavy bow with control and precision you can easily handle a war bow.
Dude, as a Slovak I must say that its absolutely not forgotten or diminished here in central Europe. Im a part of HEMA archery group and I can say that on every competition event or exhibition event, the short recurve bows are much more prominent than longbows. I would even say that here in Central Europe where we were affected by turkish and mongol raids throughout the whole middle ages the longbow was not present at all. Consider that outside Anglo-French territory, where welsh longbow is the most prominent and asian style recurve bow was not used, all other europe used these short bows, because of frequent conflicts with Turks, Balkans, Mongols, Hungarians, etc. The mental situation you are describing is only taking place in english speaking countries imho. Everywhere else its the other way around.
This 100%, wonderful post. This video is a pure product of a very Anglocentric mind. He uses the word 'medieval' (history) as it was exclusive to western Europe/England every time, that's very narrow minded and borderline offensive.
@@lysandros765 Agree, hope he reads this
As a very amateur bow builder, recurving tips - especially on short(er) bows serves a couple additional functions beyond preventing the string from falling off at full draw, and you sort of mentioned it. Like you said, a shorter non-recurve bow drawn to a normal full draw is going to have increased string angle at the tips. This impacts the draw characteristics and greatly effects potential efficiency. Every bow 'stacks' at some point during the draw where it becomes harder and harder to pull for a given amount of draw and at this point you start to lose efficiency - you don't gain anything from pulling beyond that point. Short straight limbs will intuitively start to stack at a shorter draw so by recurving you are improving late draw string angle and you're able to push that point further back into the draw in order to attain a full ~28+" draw on a short bow. There's obviously more design and material considerations and interactions at work but I think that's the greatest advantage recurved limbs have on a shorter bow. There's also additional force/draw benefits of recurve limbs in general that make them overall more efficient than straight limbed bows but that's another conversation.
Bow design and material capabilities is really cool and I highly recommend reading the Traditional Bowyer's Bible I for more on this specific topic
Another advantage of a shorter bow is the overall weight distribution. Weight that is further away fron the point of rotation, needs way more energy to be moved. By moving the tips closer to the handle you greatly reduce the Problem of extra weight on the tips eating away the power that you invested during the draw. Every gram on the tips of longbow reduces the efficency of the bow to a far greater degree than extra weight on a shorter bow.
@@thomastschojer2268 agreed, overall mass and mass placement has a huge impact on cast and performance. It's fascinating to see how different cultures differently addressed these variables. As far as I know, there's a whole family native American short plains bows that were straight limbed, a little heavier to pull, and just had shorter draws. And those worked just great for what they needed it to do
Came here to say this. Quite right. It's more about how the bow stacks than about the string falling off. Recurves make bows more efficient and nicer to draw.
I'm on my desktop and I'm getting a message "This video is unavailable on this device." Anyone else having problems?
yup