There is an anecdote in Poland about a medieval reconstruction group who tried to make a siege crossbow out of a leaf spring and ended up overpenetrating through their target into some dude's car outside the grounds
My dad had a crossbow he made himself out of a leaf spring, my brother tried to cock it wearing wet wellingtons, the shoe slipped of the loop and the crossbow hit him in the stomach, few inches lower and he'd be singing in falsetto :D
I made a medieval crossbow from plans in a book written over 125 years ago by a retired British colonel. The bow was made from a leaf spring. The crossbow was cocked using a modified crank from a boat trailer. The first shot was by accident and the bolt was never found. Even now the crossbow is so powerful it still scares me when shooting it. It is mainly a wall display now.
When I was 15 I made a cross bow from a three and a half ton truck spring, it was so heavy i had to fire it from the workshop vice, I used a piece of torsion bar from an old Ford car for the bolt. To draw the bow required a hydraulic ram. I only ever fired it the once as my parents put a stop to my experiments because on the first test fire it put the bolt right through the nine inch thick brick wall of the workshop.
45° is optimal range in a vacuum, or no drag. The more drag there is, the lower the angle is for optimal range. A baseball is at about 35° and with the size of the fletching, I wouldn't be surprised if your bolt has more drag than a baseball. Finally, the angle of attack the bolt has through the air due to the balance (or lack of) has a large effect too.
If I'm not mistaken for maximum range you want to shoot an arrow at an angle where, on level ground, it sticks in the ground at the same angle you shot it at. Should be easy to find empirically with a few test shots.
This exactly, you would have to test out your bolts at different angles to find your sweet spot for that bolt. To find a bolt that shoots farther, you could modify your farthest shooting ones in very small amounts on the weight, head, length, fletching over and over to continue and try to make a farther shooting bolt. just taking a random crossbow with a random bolt, throwing it at 45 degrees (which just looking at, you can tell is too high, even when Tod's Workshop did it at true 45) and hoping to shoot the maximum stated range is a drastic oversimplification.
He is shooting into the wind as well, that's going to cost some distance and lift the angle some as well. A wide shot where you could see the path the bolt takes would have helped to see how drag and wind played into the distance.
Yeah I thought the angle seemed a bit high if he was going for distance. A lot of the energy that could be going into distance would be lost fighting more directly against gravity.
The primary battlefield advantage of the crossbow is that it doesn't require very much training to use. An individual longbowman would be many times more lethal than an individual arbelast under identical conditions. Becoming a longbowman, however, required unusual talent and years of intense training. On the other hand, you could take some young man off the street, give him a crossbow and put him through about a month's worth of basic training, and you'd have a reasonably effective soldier. And if you do this with 1,000 young men, all taking cover behind battlements or covering each other as they reloaded, you could field a formidable fighting force in a very short amount of time.
@@ariesleo7396 Yup, which is why even though muskets actually still had an inferior rate of fire compared to a longbow, they were the far more ubiquitous weapon once that technology was perfected. Add on top of that muskets were also more powerful than bows and that's why it became the dominant battlefield weapon for so long.
10 days after this video was uploaded, Tod's workshop did a nearly identical test, but using more rigorous measuring (constant 45° angle and using a range finder) and using bolts of different weight. The 93g bolt went 219 yards and the 60g bolt went 238 yards. So, yeah, the 200-250m range is absolutely on point. Specially since 45° angle isn't nearly optimal for maximum range.
@@opmacace523 Except Modern History TV didn't shoot a 180g bolt either. 1- He guessed 180-200g, he didn't weigh it. 2- It looks very much like Tod's 80g, maybe the bigger bolt: 93g. 3- That steel point weighs significantly less than 100g. It fits inside a cylinder of 70mm x 15mm and such a steel cylinder weighs ~100g, but the point is concave and it's also a lot flatter than a cylinder.
@@ModernKnight Hey, you should talk to Tod of Tod's workshop, if you haven't already, he's done a lot of great crossbow work. ruclips.net/video/44Jn8oBDNCE/видео.html
I'm so glad you didn't scrap the video. You're right, things do go wrong. And it was nice to see the accuracy including all that could have gone into these breaking down. Besides, it was a lovely video to look at. Gorgeous countryside, attractive choice of cloths, well spoken, very nice cinematography, and cool looking weapon. Overall a very nice video. 👍
@@matts9116 Do paintball guns put a spin on the ball? That might affect it too. I know with airsoft guns the BB has quite a spin to it, and you don't need a lot of elevation to get the most range out of them.
@@joost1120 high end paintball markers intentionally avoid spin as momentum of fluid affects accuracy, some aftermarket barrels and attachments impart spin for better range at the cost of accuracy. 32 deg applies to a lobbed 68 cal ball at ~300fps
I suppose another reason why this is a "siege" crossbow then is that if you're in a castle, or indeed attacking one, you are probably not doing it from the open. You'll be hiding behind a merlon or in a tower or behind a palisade to load and if something does break you'd want to have a few spare crossbows on hand just in case.
@@d.aardent9382 Wind is also a fart, and lasses can push wind from two sources, but it's not worth quiffering over. I saw some blow dart professional lasses in Thailand with incredible skills. Bow dart or blow dart involve a windlass.
For how many shots you're getting, I think you have to take the name as a cue: It's a siege crossbow. It's a thing you take pot-shots with while you're waiting for days, trying to starve the opponent into submission. That's why the refire rate is so thoroughly sacrificed. You're hanging out in a trench, keeping your eye open for one of the enemy to poke their heads out from behind cover. Just one of these moving in the trenches around a castle under siege and the defenders have to be careful about showing themselves. Or for the folks on the castle wall, likewise, this is another weapon that's more nimble than a ballista, that you can sneak around to different positions around the ramparts and give attackers a reason to stay further back. That's my guess: A device like this isn't so much ABOUT the open battlefield. It's about making your opponent make hard choices or take stupid risks during the long weeks of a siege. Hence the name, "siege crossbow". That's why the slow, finicky reload time is an acceptable trade-off.
You'd almost need 3 people and 3 crossbows; one to keep them loaded, one to hand the loaded one to the crossbowman, and one to fire. I wonder if Todd Cutler could help determine whether the bow is in optimum condition. In fact, I bet he already has data on draw weight, range, etc.
It "feels" like these would be used more like a gun, more like a snipers weapon in a direct, fairly close range. The showering down attack from above in a full on blitz fashion, is obviously far better suited to arrows in terms of efficiency - and cost! But the deadly affect of the bolt and set up time required feels like it would be way better suited for picking people off in closer ranges. Great vid!
I agree, the crossbow was known to be a peasants weapon or whatever, because any peasant could shoot and without years of training like professional archers. So I'm not surprised that it has very poor range, because these battle crossbows aren't really used for long range precision.
A group of my friends did some similar tests about 4 years ago. Your results seem to be a little low but not that far off. We were getting maximum ranges of about 150 yards with most being about 140 and after a day we were reliably getting 4 shots in a minute, just under 20 seconds to reload. We also had 2 major malfuntions from 10 bows and at least twice as many minor issues over the day.
@@ericwilliams1659 judging by the flag, he's also shooting into the (light) wind. Then there's aerodynamics, if you shoot at 45° angle, your arrow will encounter a bit more air on it's journey. (but air up high is less dense). So the ideal angle for max distance, on flat ground, should actually typically be less than 45°C; between 45° & 30°.
Thank you for putting the video out. What I appreciate most about your videos is how down to earth, and relevant they are to real life of the period. The little things you find and point out is what you don't get from any other historical teaching.
4:19 He's winding in the wrong direction because the draw rope is rubbing on the metal bar. If he simply winds in the opposite direction it will wind easier.
@@bizybliztaverage9414 😆 "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" Absolute classic.
I absolutely loved this episode. I’m a novice Archer who’s been getting more and more into archery and being able to see this type of medieval crossbow was very cool.
Well, the underperformance is interesting as in of itself. Things in wartimes were messy, nothing was in tip top condition when going to the battlefield, and considering that in historical testing is a thought provoking exercise.
@@Br1cht I'm not talking about maintenance, there is record of careful and instructed maintenance to most weapons, even as far back as the medieval times. I'm talking about wear and tears that would occur to weapons WHILST still in the heat of battle. A weapon would have to endure grueling circumstances for up to an hour, sometimes beyond in campaigns or under siege, and considering their effectiveness under those circumstances is not something you see on medieval weapon testing all that much.
Some of the underperformance is also too steep of a shooting angle; 45 degrees is only best when ignoring drag. The best range would be with a somewhat flatter trajectory. It would definitely still underperform even if he fixed that though; maybe an extra 25% range, but not double.
@@Br1cht Every crossbow user would know not to drive tent pegs with it, and to keep it unstrung in rain. However, only be so much can be done with component level damage, especially those that require a forge to fix. If the windlass fails and dry fires the bow, there may be permanent damage to the metal limbs like the tempering. This will reduce the power and safety, if the loops attaching the string and the bow were not also damaged. If those are also damaged, the stopgap solution might make it pitifully weak, since there is a risk to stringing it to the intended draw weight with common rope without the reinforcements.
@@FireStormOOO_ Depending on the acceleration of the bolt you could probably calculate the optimal angle so the gravity vector is counteracted. But I think as a rule of thumb 30 degrees should be better.
When range testing, I would recommend lowering the shot angle a bit. Ideal firing angle with air resistance is actually around 38 degrees, and you are shooting into the wind so you actually need to go even lower to max out your range.
@@matthewchewning8061 I don't have access to long range shooting propery right now, so a demo isn't possible. I'd love to start making videos eventually but I need access to the right facilities/property.
Typically around 60 paces = 100m, so 120-130 paces is about 200-220m. It depends a little on your height and gait, but in the infantry we spent a day during map-reading to get our pace, and it was pretty close to 60 for almost all of us (55-70) per 100m. If you mean 'steps' rather than 'paces' (a pace is two steps, every time your right foot hits the ground), 130steps is only 100 m or so, but 130 paces is probably a little over 200 m more if you have a long stride.
Could it also be the 200+yard/meter expected range could be from a high battlement? I'm no rocket doctor but shooting 40ish feet above the ground could add a lot of distance?
Looks like you're shooting with a fairly strong head-wind; that almost certainly makes a fairly significant difference with such a large projectile (as compared to a modern bullet). I think with a head-wind you want to shoot lower than 45 degrees. The optimistic 200 to 250 yards could be with a tail-wind, or there could be other factors. Hard to be sure what power level of crossbow, what angle they were shooting, and what conditions would be like.
@@b-beale1931 My guess is the elevated position -- typically from the top of a castle wall - would about double the range. The higher the further, anyway.
@@gerardvila4685 if you are sieging a fortification i think the only reason to use missiles is to suppress the soldiers on the walls while doing other things anyway. if you are defending, much better of course. plenty of time to reload and safer to shoot. matt easton recently made a video about the use of ladders and missile weapons together in a siege, very interesting.
Also humidity play a role also. Humidity on crossbow and bow alike affects heavily the ropes tensions and the speed due to the resistance that it causes
I used a selfmade crossbow for larp (which has far less power), but I can recommend waxing the part where the bolt and string move and the string as well. I reduces friction a lot and protects from moisture.
Looks like you are dragging the bow string over an already set nut for the trigger, that may be what is destroying your string. Tod from Tod Workshop is adamant about not doing it that way which makes sense that you are dragging a rope under 1k pressure over a metal nut. Been watching both of you guys for a long time, keep up the great content.
Tod's videos on his crossbows are excellent, he really knows what he's talking about when it comes to the practical mechanics of crossbow design. I like his observations too on how despite being very high draw weight, steel crossbows have to be that high because of the energy loss from steel bows compared to the efficiency of wood and the weight of the bow limbs themselves effecting the momentum, combined with the short draw length it imparts way less energy to the bolt than people would assume. Still excellent weapons in the right situation like castle defence or a line of crossbowmen with some anti-cavalry defences, but not so amazing that a trained longbowman was instantly obsolete.
@@G1NZOU yes, everytime I hear about the massive draw weight of one of these, I always think about just how heavy those limbs are, and how much of that power is wasted moving those massive limbs forward. I have to wonder whether a lighter crossbow, perhaps the sort drawn with a goat's foot lever, would be more efficient than this sort of heavier crossbow, even in a siege situation. I can't imagine why anyone would use this weapon in a battle though. After taking one shot, you are stuck with a cumbersome piece of lumber and steel that is going to take at least half a minute if not more to reload.
@@simonphoenix3789 Sieges, unlike in movies, tend to take days, weeks or months even. you can very well afford the time to wind up the crossbow in the safety of your tower, gatehouse or keep, and be slow and steady in a dry place, whilst weather disease and the prospect of another force rushing to your aid from the outside are slowly grating on the attackers.
It's the slow trigger release. The 'string' is dragging over the nut to actually release as the trigger is depressed too slowly. The force of the bow is triggering the release at the very last instant. He's squeezing it like a gun trigger, instead of the quick 'click' it needs.
The reason why it only went 120 paces is because steel is a terribly inefficient bow material and the powestroke is very short and the historical nuts are made of antler which is lighter
@@ModernKnight professional crossbowmaker Andreas Bischer makes composite horn crossbows of 1200 lb with antler nuts. There are no evidence of medieval nuts made of steel or iron, only antler nuts with metal reinforcement or brass and the brass nuts are for Siege. In fact steel prods itself only started getting used in the military in the 15th century which is pretty much the end of the medieval period
Later war-weight ones from the museum examples I've seen all use steel. Maybe it's different outside western Europe? But fair enough I'm on no way a crossbow expert. I defer to your greater knowledge.
And a lighter bolt would help. Another thing, the max distance would not be from shoot at 45 degree. With air resistance and past military test (for max range on artillery), it would be around 40 or lower degree I guess (I remember artillery gets max range around 42 degree).
Here’s the thing about Artillery/Ballistic trajectories, guys. They are “elastic”. A real-life example: Imagine spraying a stream of water from a hose. The higher you elevate the hose, the further away the stream will hit the ground - TO A POINT. Elevating past that point results in achieving LESS range. That point is exactly 45 degrees/800mils of elevation. In the Field Artillery, we referred to “low angle fire” (less than 45 degrees elevation) vs “high angle fire” (more than 45 degrees elevation). High-angle fire is more the province of mortars, used at shorter ranges, more to counter the defilade positions of targets. Low angle fire is more used in Field Artillery - 105mm and larger weapons. Longer ranges, and the only thing high angle fire does is make your projectiles easier for radar systems to track back to you, and increase projectile time of flight, and therefore your response time in fire support. So yes 45 degrees elevation is your max range.
@@tatumergo3931 You bet your ass, Redleg! FAOBC 12-89, FACBOC ?/89 and FATASOC 3/90. FDO/PL B-3/8 FAR XVIII ABN Corps Arty Gulf War I, Military Order of Saint Barbara. My gunnery instructor was a CPT Thomas, who, in spite of being an Annapolis Jarhead, was the BEST instructor we could have asked for. Takes one to know one, you must be too?
@@JonatasAdoM no someone else is filming, when the camera zooms and moves up there are very subtle movements/shaking(you can barely notice, the camera is on a tripod i think.) besides it is good common sense that when you play around with crossbows/weapons, you should take someone with you.
Unquestionably this is an outstanding living history channel. A presentation such as this, showing things as they are (were), warts and all, is a great pleasure to view.
Goodness! CB Cardille-. My all time favorite when I was a kid! We used to skate in Monroeville Mall when the Penguins weren't practicing!!! A show I try to watch every Saturday night now is Creature Features. Similar in a way to Chilly Billy and Chiller Theatre! In fact, about 6 weeks ago they did a shout out to his great show back then and later showed night of the Living Dead !!! Do well- go Steelers, Pirates and Penguins- God bless America!!!🇺🇸
@Erwin Spaan well we all know what @Joel Thompson meant👍🏻. Even Jason Kingsley, from Modern History TV, used the word 'fire' at the start of this particular Crossbow video. ✌🏻
So glad you didn't scrap this one! I'd love to see a follow-up video focusing on how reliable (or not) these things really were and especially how that reliability would compare to early firearms. The unreliability of early firearms gets discussed a lot, I think with the implication that alternatives like the crossbow were much more reliable. After watching this I can't help but wonder if perhaps the difference is significantly smaller than commonly believed, or if firearms were actually MORE reliable than a monster crossbow like this (the only comparable infantry weapon in terms of range, power, and ease of use that I can think of) over the course of a long battle. I don't think I've ever actually seen an in-depth look at this reliability angle and if/how it affected the adoption of firearms.
To be fair on the reliability angle, this crossbow is a decorative piece not made for shooting. Evidenced by the string serving being not tight, made of regular twisted rope, and not even waxed. I wouldn't be brave enough to shoot it even once without fitting a proper string and inspecting/tuning the trigger action first. The right thing to do would be to make a video with someone who shoots heavy crossbows regularly.
@@blahblah3347 Nowhere does he say it's a decorative replica. From all the videos he's done it's clear he gets top quality stuff(we all would if we could afford it!) from proper craftsmen. If it were just a wallhanger there'd be no need to give it a 1,000lb prod, norsuch a carefully engineered windlass. If he says it's 1,000lb either he of the maker has tested the draw weight. A well waxed string would definately help as you say, as would some for of lubrication on the stock grove where the bolt & string rub along.
@@2bingtim Every medieval crossbow I ran into had the same problems. I don't know why, but they are more like a crossbow kit than a functioning thing when sold. The string is made of a rope that looks medieval but frays after a few shots. The hooks on the nut are sharp and cut the string. The trigger is not polished and bumps the string upward on release. The angle between the bow and the stock is not set right. This crossbow looks very decent, but he still had to get someone a bit experienced to set it up properly for shooting.
Ever heard the saying, "They just don't make 'em like they used to"? I'm sure crossbow makers were much more proficient back when they were being regularly used and serviced.
Best medieval channel out there! I hope Jason makes a game about knights with his gaming company. Who's better to provide wealth of knowledge for that kind of endeavor!
You may wanna check out the Czech game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which is extremely historically accurate for the setting in Central Europe and early 15th century time period.
I'm at the 9:00 mark, and all those lessons from PHY121 class back in my university days is coming back to me. First, there's the equation "Force = Mass x Acceleration". Then there's the splitting of forces into the X (SIN(degs x) x Force) and Y axes (COS(degs x) x Force + Gravity) so you can plot the vectors of the bolt across its flight path. Sadly, the only thing we know is roughly that the arrow was shot at a 45 deg angle. So, yay! I don't have to do maths.
In an open air museum, I learned that if a lord offended the seigelord he would have crossbowmen under the toilets of the castle, to take aim at the lords bum. www.absolutefacts.nl/img/kastelen/t/gemakken-doornenburg-dubbele-afvoer-buiten.jpg Picture of medieval toilets
@@philipdemaeyer1665 Doubt you could hit the lord taking a shit though. There's a pretty big moat around the castle. Specifically on the castle you used as an example, since I'm part of the living history group of that castle ;). Unfortunately I've not been there in a few months because of Covid, but I know the place like the back of my hand.
Very happy you uploaded this even though it didn't perform as expected. I think it teaches another very interesting part of crossbows that people rarely mention
Hi Jason. Great video but I think the 45° angle you were using is the reason why the bolts weren't going very far. Shooting at that steep an angle not only slows the bolts down rapidly due to the increase in felt gravity on them, they're also using twice the amount of energy to travel the same distance as if they were shot at a flatter trajectory. They're moving diagonally at that angle and then falling out of the sky. I have studied ballistics and hold firearms. Try shooting at a 15 or 20° angle and I'm certain the effective range will increase.
This was a very enlightening demonstration of the potential reliability shortfalls of an otherwise potentially devastating weapon. I appreciate your taking the time to pivot the direction of the piece when it became apparent that things were not going to plan, and then sit down and reason out some of the implications of what you'd experienced. Thank you very much for your time and another piece of quality content. If it's not too forward of me to ask, would you be willing to revisit this at a later date once your crossbow has been repaired? I would be most curious to see the extent to which shooting from an elevated position would influence the potential range of such a crossbow, particularly considering that it is typically referred to as a "siege crossbow", as you pointed out. Of course, there are a number of practical limitations on such an undertaking-- expense, time, and effort required to set up such a demonstration, all come to mind and each of those considerations individually (let alone collectively) might certainly represent significant barriers. It would, of course, be totally understandable if you felt that it wouldn't be as worthwhile as something else altogether.
@@ModernKnight Please account for the wind too (maybe just go to where your bolt landed and shoot back towards the start). Then we'll know if it was a significant factor.
@@ModernKnight I believe the underperformance of this crossbow shows that focusing solely on the draw weight of a crossbow is not particularly useful because the draw weight is only 1 out of at least 3 factors that determines the power of a crossbow. The power of a crossbow (or bow) is determined by draw weight, power stroke, and efficiency. Even though this 1000 lb draw weight crossbow seems powerful, the actual amount of energy delivered through the bolt is quite low because it has a low powerstroke (5.5-6 inches) and uses an inefficient heavy steel prod that snap back slowly (much more inefficient compared to wood, composite, or modern materials). For example, assuming this 1000 lb draw weight crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke has 45% prod efficiency, it would shoot an arrow/bolt with a roughly comparable amount of power to a 140 lb draw weight longbow with a 26 inch powerstroke (32 inch draw length) that has 75% prod efficiency. 140 x 26 (1/2) x .75 efficiency = 1365 VS 1000 x 6 (1/2) x .45 efficiency = 1350
Yes. If results from replicas reflect the performance of historical crossbows, steel crossbow existed solely for ease of manufacture & maintenance. I still believe historical steel crossbows performed a bit than Tod's & other contemporary replicas, but there's no way they could match horn crossbows. If nothing else, steel crossbow weigh far more than horn ones, making them cumbersome for the field. They make sense for defending walls & the like, because they can be keep ready to shoot without too much fuss. (Though still some fuss. This video shows how things can go wrong.) & big steel crossbow like this still deliver enough kinetic energy to plenty dangerous, especially if show from an elevated position.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Steel crossbows were not something simple to make, had to have a very good smith just to get the temper right in the steel. Could easily kill the shooter if the steel limbs breaks.
@B. H. Abbott-Motley remember steel crossbows emerged the last 10% of crossbow history. In other words they were still experimenting but it quickly got replaced by firearms
@Andreas Fjellborg meanwhile a simple wooden prod takes very little skill to make and there’s plenty of craftsmen available for that. a 100lb@20” wooden crossbow can outperform a 400lb@6” steel crossbow , the only disadvantage of the wooden prod is it needs to be wide
@8:30 "slow firing". It's a difficult habit to lose. : ) In our reenacted French compagnie d’arbalètes, we say "Lâche! - Loose!". If you say "Fire" you have to do push-ups until you can hand-span the crossbow. ;D Btw, Video Génial !
@@ModernKnight Hello. Quick and serious question, where can I get such nicely done and authentically looking boots like yours? All that I find look very bad or are cosplay quality.
I remember Mike Loades talking about a 1000lb crossbow and that even though the bow itself is 1000lb, it wouldn’t achieve that power because the actual length of the draw was very short so because of that you lose a lot of the potential of the bow
Todd's Workshop does a very good explanation and comparison of the efficiencies of different bow designs. All design choices are compromises between different advantages and disadvantages.
Yes, the energy transfer is not that efficient. Even a steel bow with very high draw weight will lose a fair bit of that energy while transfering it to a bolt over a short takeoff distance (the draw). The central position of the typical European crossbow release mechanism and the technology for late-medieval and early modern steel bows limited the effective length of the draw. Historical single-shot Chinese crossbows kind of got around the issue by inventing a more pistol grip-like release mechanism at the back end of a crossbow, lengthening the draw for the starting position of the bolt. However, the Chinese never got around to using steel bows on their crossbows like in Europe, so the draw weight was reliant on wooden or composite bows. (Chinese repeating crossbows, though fast to shoot, had even bigger inherent issues with power transfer. They were even weaker than both European and Asian single-shots and their range was also notably more limited as a result. Hence why you see them relegated to personal defence weapons or chokepoint guarding archery weapons. And as Jason also notes, the more complex a crossbow's mechanism, the likelier it is it might malfunction, especially with bad maintenance.)
Ironicly, in Russia (and most of other slavic languages) we use a word based on "arrow", to say "shooting" or "firing" even for firearms or artillery. Like "to arrow an AK, or RPG". Just useless funny fact.
Have you discussed this with Tod Cutler of Tod’s Workshops? He has done a great deal of work on this sort of weapon system although I have not seen him use one as powerful as 1 000lb draw weight.
I am watching this video for the 3rd time now. I must say to you that I absolutely enjoy your content. It is very much appreciated that upload videos like that and let the people draw their own conclusions. It is the details like what a knight does once he broke his lance or what happens when a novice handles a siege crossbow in battle that interests me. there are too many archeologists, books and documentaries that are far too sure about what happened without trying it out. I am looking forward to see all of your videos.
I love how this is treat like a business. With a longbow, the longbow is the tool, and the archer is the skilled user, they are a package. You can make the longbow easily, but the bowman is the real investment as it took years to develop strength and skill to be really effective, you couldn't just give the bow to a non-archer and expect results. With a crossbow, the bow itself is complex to build, but it is so easy to use that the archer is essentially replaceable and the actual investment is the bow. The bow doesn't get old and weak, or out of practice. If the man holding it dies, you can give the same bow to another man and train him very quickly. Because it was so easy to learn how to use, you could store the crossbows until they were needed and even possibly not even have to keep as many trained men on hand during peace time (as longbows took more skills to use and more muscle needed to draw, you would presumably need to keep people in practice all the time to make sure you had a capable number of archers on hand incase war does break out). It is sad but I bet this also devalued life a bit as the individual bowman was now not as much of a loss as they used to be right? You lose a longbowman, you lose the only person capable of firing that longbow. You lose a crossbowman and you only lose the man, the bow will be used again. At the risk of debunking my own assumptions, I do have a question though. If the crossbow was easier to use than a longbow, why was being a crossbowman an actual career? If a skill can be simplified, or automated as is happening these days. This usually results in the operators of that skill being devalued. Was being a crossbowman only a valuable skill when crossbows were new and their operation not widely known? Or was there more to their operation than is widely believed? Thus having a skilled operator would be a valuable enough skill as to be a 'career'.
It looks like you’re cranking in the wrong direction while cocking as the line is rubbing on the lower frame member of the windlass. (Ah yes, the windlass rope frayed and broke after I posted. Perhaps I should wait till the end before commenting.)
Interesting that a modern, 80 lb, compound bow can be effective out to similar distances if the shooter is excellent. But the weight of the arrow is generally about 30 grams. I would think the difference between a 30 and 190-gram projectile would become very apparent with armor involved.
In physics terms, the work done on the bolt/arrow is the force times the distance. The crossbow may have a larger force but the longer bow maintains that force over a longer distance giving the same energy.
It's really informative to see all the different problems that cropped up. Often people don't include that because they feel it may detract from the story they are trying to tell. So kudos on including the whole story warts and all.
I made a target crossbow using a prod made from Noral 75, an alloy used in aircraft manufacture-I found in practice that a shallower angle gave a better range, I suspect that there was less friction on a more horizontal bolt in flight. Cocking the bow was hard work after a while. Thank you for sharing your experience and expertise. Greetings from Tasmania Australia. 👍😁🇦🇺🦘
Great video! It really shows why good crossbowmen were so highly regarded and sought after as mercenaries. These great crossbows are far from simple weapons, and it probably took a well-trained and experienced professional to get the most out of them.
I think most historans say that the bennefit of crossbows, is that unlike longbows, they DON'T require a lot of specialist skills. Longbowmen needed to be trained from childhood, where crossbows could be used by virually any soldier. I'm sure there's SOME degree of a skill factpr, but both the power, and release are lregulated by the weapon (unlike longbows), so they can't vary no matter how skilled/unskilled you are. So elevation is the only real areas where skill could affect range (different if you're shooting for targets, rather than range, but the point still stands).
@@bxdxggxdxb2775 Well... The reason Crossbowmen were expensive (aside from needing to be able to reload at an efficient rate. I don't know about crossbows, but I know that people using early firing arms actually had to prove they were capable of reliably reloading the gun at a certain rate if they wanted to join a mercenary regiment as gunners) is probably also because they had to supply those crossbows themselves and well... Bows take a lot of practice to make, but in the end they only require wood, some kind of string and the tools required to work those things. Crossbows on the other hand typically had either a forged steel or composite bow as well as a more complex firing mechanism and thus required more expensive materials and a greater selection of different skills to make.
I suspect the skill regarding crossbows, particularly siege crossbows, came in the maintenance and loading/reloading stages. Using a windlass as quickly and efficiently as possible while you're under attack probably took a fair bit of skill and discipline. Aiming and firing may have been easier, but that's only one part of the equation.
As with any weapon they do require a lot of skill to get the most out of them but the biggest contrast between bows and crossbows in that regard is the barrier to entry. Crossbows are far easier to get good enough at to be effective. It is also worth noting that the two were not mutually exclusive. One was not inherently preferred over another and in fact some armies wanted them both as they complimented each other. The suppressing and continuous "fire" of a bow combined with the power at modest range of the crossbow.
I CAN'T thank you enough for this channel and for Rebellion Developments. I just made the connection recently, AvP was one of my favorite all time games and I watch this channel whenever I play something of the relevant historical time period. You guys have done such an incredible job at everything you've touched and again I cannot thank you enough for what you've helped bring into the world!
I have to say, that the crossbow you're using looks very "small and weak" compared to what i was shown as an example of a "siege crossbow" in a museum. It used a heavier bolt with a longer bow and longer draw. Maybe 25-40% larger in both dimensions compared to what you're using? I vaguely seem to recall something about 15kg weight(and that it (normally) needs a support while shooting)... What you're using is what i've been shown to be a "normal windlass crossbow". And 130 paces is definitely not long enough to stand up to ranges we historically KNOW that crossbows have been used at. So yeah, definitely something is not working as it should. Due to the fraying, my first guess would be that the string might be too short? So that there's too high tension on it while unloaded. Check if it can be redone so that the string in unloaded position is, maybe an inch, maybe even two, further forward. The string also seem to scrape against the wood far too much. And while things break, crossbows are very much not supposed to break THAT easily. Getting 10-ish shots off during a battle without it breaking for at least 90% should be realistic. Otherwise realworld accounts of battles using crossbows just cannot make sense, they literally become impossible. And they were definitely high on maintenance, but well maintained, getting several shots off without issue SHOULD be normal. So again, yeah, you're definitely doing something wrong. Also, maintenance includes DAILY or at minimum weekly stuff, keeping both wood, metal and string treated properly. How likely is it that your crossbow has been maintained at least on a weekly basis? My guess is, not even close. Oh, and BTW, 45 degrees angle is for theoretical optimal range, for actual optimal range you need to aim slightly lower, the lighter the projectile is compared to its air resistance, the lower you need to adjust. Otherwise, you're spending more energy on having the bolt moving vertically than horizontally. And now i notice that several others have commented on this as well. And of course you should post a video even if it is a "failure", because that's part of learning what does NOT work, meaning that you can hopefully use it to figure out what DOES work in the future.
Guillaume du Bellay (1491 - 1543) in Discipline Militaire (edition of 1592) : "Amongst other less common weapons are bow and crossbow, two weapons that can do great damage against unarmoured (lit. "naked") or poorly armed people. And just as in rainy weather the arquebusier wastes its season (literal translation of idiom, sense here "turns useless"), and if it wasn't that the archers and crossbowmen cannot carry as many ammunitions for their bows and crossbows as the arquebusiers can for their arquebuses ; I would laud the archers and crossbowmen both for their quickness to shoot - which is much more sudden - and the sureness of their shot, which is not useless. I admit the arquebusier can shoot from further away, nevertheless the archer and the crossbowman will kill a naked man at 100 or 200 steps just as well as the best arquebusier ; and some times so well that the harness if it's not of the strongest will not resist it. *Else the solution is that they will shoot from as close as they can* : and if it happens we will find more people injured or killed by them than by twice as many arquebusiers."
That was written by Raimond de Fourquevaux, originally published in French in 1548. Fourquevaux, an experienced commander, did have surprisingly high opinion of crossbows & gave the example of how a single crossbower killed & wounded many more of the enemy than the best arquebusiers at a siege in the 1520s.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I am not sure what you are exactly answering to, but the snippet above is translated, as cited, from the Discipline Militaire of 1592, which is an augmented version of the Instructions sur le faict de la guerre of 1548. The work was attributed since period to Guillaume du Bellay, who was working on treatises for the king. Fouquevaux is supposedly the lord who found those manuscripts after du Bellay's death and brought them for printing without, according to the his word and this of the printer, modifying the original author's text.
I had an uncle who made something like that some 50 year ago. Had more penetrative power than a shotgun and the steel bolt ended up bending in on itself when it hit a tree.
No wonder sieges lasted so long! Nowadays, so much more efficient, we can go to war at lunchtime and be finished by breakfast next day with maximum destruction. Might not even know anything about it until the 6pm news
Absolutely appreciate you presenting this video, with all the considerations about circumstances and conditions, rather than you not doing so because of the 'failures'. In experiments, 'successful' or not, one learns something. In this case, that means we all had this chance to learn this stuff too. Cheers!
One advantage of the corssbow over the bow, that's almost never pictured: you can span it and wait a whole day for the best moment to shoot. With a strong war bow you can hold the spanned string for about 20 seconds maximum!
I would like to point out that looking at that flag you had there, wind was working against you. It definitely had an impact on range, specifically when bold is losing it's velocity. Wind will push on feathers and slow it down. Maybe that maximum range was in perfect conditions with wind working in your favour and not against you.
Not gonna lie, thought that title was gonna have this video going in a whole different direction after Scott from Kentucky Ballistics accident. Glad to see it didn't though, crossbows may be easier to work with but comes at such a trade off for that lower skill bracket. War always has those trade offs though.
I watched that too after Gun Jesus mentioned and linked it. Nasty business, and that neck scar was brutal. Mad respect for him and hid dad for keeping their head cool and knowing what to do in that situation. “Just Put A Thumb In It" indeed...
I always thought of crossbows as these powerhouses that couldn't be stopped. Now they seem very cumbersome and underwhelming because of the mechanical failures and reloading mechanism. Not to mention the short distance it can shoot. You'd think something with 1klb behind it would send a bolt half way across the country. Very surprising and informative video, thank you!
Its because of the physics of using metal as the bow compared to spring like wood. Its like rubberband vs steelwire. That is why the draw weight is crazy yet they dont shoot that hard.
The crossbow is hugely less efficient than ordinary bows. This is due to a tiny power stroke, massive limb weight, much thicker & heavier strings, friction of the string over the stock. One reason heavy bolts were used is because they use what energy is delivered most efficeintly. It is an excellent sniping tool as you can sight down the stock direct for close range shooting. Even when steel prod 1,000lb crossbows came about, lighter, more simply spanned crossbows remained in use by most crossbowmen.
I'd think range can be extended with HEAVIER bolts. Abundance of draw weight with short power stroke means that you can get more usable energy with heavier projectile. And heavier bolt = better ballistic coefficient, i.e. the air slows it less than a lighter bolt. At least that's my basic physics understanding :D
There are images in the books of hours in which you can see that the crossbowmen have got spare strings over their shoulders where you can count up to 8 sets of spare bow strings. I would imagine they must have performed a drill with their crossbows, much as the regular Bowman had to practice on a nearly daily basis. We know about the daily basis and go because there were laws that required them to practice on a daily basis.
I know the genoan crossbowmen (soldiers of fortune) aworked in pairs where one spanned a crossbow while the shooty guy shot the other crossbow, because they viewed rate of fire as being superior to bolts in a volley. Do you think this was the norm for a regular medieval army or would two guys be shooting their own crossbows?
History tells us that military best practise is soon adopted by all. Remember these people were intelligent, they just didn't have the accumulated knowledge that we have.
I own two crossbows that I use during hunting bow season. One is a recurve bow at 150lbs draw weight and the other is a compound bow at 180lbs draw weight. I can just about cock the recurve by hand but have to use a simple string pulley for the compound, I think it gives a 2:1 advantage. I find I'm almost there by hand but as you get closer to your body your arms are no longer straight and you lose leverage. I usually find myself an inch short but it may as well be a mile. The extra 30lbs is just enough to stop me. Anyway, I carry a spare string when I'm out with the recurve and can re-string it myself. The compound bow I would have no chance with due to the cam system employed, if the bowstring breaks then I'm done and taking it to an archery shop. That's why if I'm away for a few days I always take both.
I was afraid the damn thing was going to break while you drew the string back and hurt you. Looks damn dangerous. I wouldn't go near the damn thing without safety glasses on.
That was my first thought when I saw the title. I was surprised not to see a face shield. He had probably tested it a few times so was actually more comfortable with what to expect.
Jason I have a question I wonder about. How did people in medieval times carry around their things while traveling on foot? Did they use backpacks and satchels like today?
Based on the direction your standard is wafting, you are shooting directly into the wind. That would certainly impact the distance the bolt would travel. Perhaps each bowman had multiple crossbows already prepped and only had to add the bolt and fire.
@@lancepickett5653 Yup, 45 would be in a perfect vacuum but with air resistance and density changes not so much. You'll see archers instinctively shooting for range at about those angels all the time. Basically because they've learned what works best.
The ballistics equation for range use the sine and cosine if the angle of elevation. In its simplest from the distance contains the sine of double the angie of elevation, which for maximum range this term must equal 1, and therefore the only angle of elevation where this is true is 45 degrees.
@@MrBottlecapBill yes, the ballistics equations are based on simplifications such as the Earth being flat, no air resistance, the projectile beings point of no mass, gravitational forces being constant and no coriolis effect. Real world shooting needs to take all of these and more into effect.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 So you are saying.. pilots learn to fly their planes based on "a flat, non rotating earth" ( to use the exact wording in military documents on the topic), but have to figure it all out on their own once licensed?
If you're up on a wall, you can probably shoot it at a lower angle so more of the energy is going towards the distance rather than being lost to gravity
That is a very astute insight. Some historian might have read some first hand account of besiegers staying 250 yards from the battlement to avoid getting hit by the siege crossbows. They didn't consider how the height of the battlement affected range. Factor in that the 250 yards probably had a safety margin in built in and I can see how that crossbow shooting those bolts at ground level doesn't get close to 250 yards.
Looking at the flag 9:10 hes shooting into the wind, would have been nice if he swapped ends to see how much the wind change effected overall distance.
What a brilliant and honest video. I love the straight forward and frankness your account is of the crossbow. It's funny really. I have always preferred the look of a crossbow compared to the longbow, and I have had both in the past. But as you have shown, the longbow is so much better in every way.
Goodness! My heart almost stopped beating when I saw that windlass rope snap... 😱 For an archer/crossbowman one of the most horrifying thoughts is dry firing due to breaking of the string or windlass. Very nice demo showing that the relative ease of use and lower training requirements of the crossbow comes at the cost of very high technological complexity and susceptibility to failure. What will serve you best for your campaigns only history will tell you. 😁
Had a similar experience recently: pulley ropes breaking during works on a historically rigged sail ship. Nothing happened, but it's so nasty in that moment...
When I was a kid I made a working crossbow out of legos. Even the bolt was a sharpened Lego. Used rubber band for bowstring. So powerful it stuck into the Sheetrock from 30’ away. That’s approx 10 meters for you folks across the pond. 12 yr old me was impressed.
I did longbow archery for ten years, Looking at your crossbow, I'd say that you need to rub your string with a block of bee's wax, I used to keep my serving (String) regularly rubbed with bee's wax, best thing to stop fraying occuring. Cheers Paul Foster
I have been watching your videos for about a year now - and I have only just discovered that you are an actual knight of the british crown. I have even played a few of your previous undertakings. Thank you for quality content!
Probably did not help that torture device slipped off the draw string a few times. I can only imagine that the hooks as the "slide off" the draw string in a weird angle. Probably doesnt do the string any favors.
There is an anecdote in Poland about a medieval reconstruction group who tried to make a siege crossbow out of a leaf spring and ended up overpenetrating through their target into some dude's car outside the grounds
My dad had a crossbow he made himself out of a leaf spring, my brother tried to cock it wearing wet wellingtons, the shoe slipped of the loop and the crossbow hit him in the stomach, few inches lower and he'd be singing in falsetto :D
Good job idiots, you made a ballista.
Man my country never disappoints with dumb stuff hahah
@@wojciechbieniek4029 Oh man. wellingtons on wet grass = bad time lol
I made a medieval crossbow from plans in a book written over 125 years ago by a retired British colonel. The bow was made from a leaf spring. The crossbow was cocked using a modified crank from a boat trailer. The first shot was by accident and the bolt was never found. Even now the crossbow is so powerful it still scares me when shooting it. It is mainly a wall display now.
When I was 15 I made a cross bow from a three and a half ton truck spring, it was so heavy i had to fire it from the workshop vice, I used a piece of torsion bar from an old Ford car for the bolt. To draw the bow required a hydraulic ram. I only ever fired it the once as my parents put a stop to my experiments because on the first test fire it put the bolt right through the nine inch thick brick wall of the workshop.
I think you would make an interesting character in a young adult book. Sounds like you had some good adventures because you thought outside the box.
So you almost became a superhero?
Are u sure you're not making a ballista 😂
I think you may have crossed from a 'Crossbow' to a Ballista, lol!
You:
"Wow, that was cool!"
Your parents:
"Where's the postman gone? He was just standing here a moment ago..."
My wife bought me a t-shirt that reads, "Crossbows don't kill people; Quarrels kill people". Very nice gift for a history buff!
WHAT A DUMB SHIRT
😂 me gustó lo de la camiseta , mi maestro de kempo decía que un cuchillo servía para pelar una fruta y matar 😂
45° is optimal range in a vacuum, or no drag. The more drag there is, the lower the angle is for optimal range. A baseball is at about 35° and with the size of the fletching, I wouldn't be surprised if your bolt has more drag than a baseball. Finally, the angle of attack the bolt has through the air due to the balance (or lack of) has a large effect too.
If I'm not mistaken for maximum range you want to shoot an arrow at an angle where, on level ground, it sticks in the ground at the same angle you shot it at. Should be easy to find empirically with a few test shots.
This exactly, you would have to test out your bolts at different angles to find your sweet spot for that bolt. To find a bolt that shoots farther, you could modify your farthest shooting ones in very small amounts on the weight, head, length, fletching over and over to continue and try to make a farther shooting bolt. just taking a random crossbow with a random bolt, throwing it at 45 degrees (which just looking at, you can tell is too high, even when Tod's Workshop did it at true 45) and hoping to shoot the maximum stated range is a drastic oversimplification.
He is shooting into the wind as well, that's going to cost some distance and lift the angle some as well. A wide shot where you could see the path the bolt takes would have helped to see how drag and wind played into the distance.
Yeah I thought the angle seemed a bit high if he was going for distance. A lot of the energy that could be going into distance would be lost fighting more directly against gravity.
I came searching for this comment. When I used to shoot bow for distance, my sweet spot with my gear was a 35 degree angle
The primary battlefield advantage of the crossbow is that it doesn't require very much training to use. An individual longbowman would be many times more lethal than an individual arbelast under identical conditions. Becoming a longbowman, however, required unusual talent and years of intense training. On the other hand, you could take some young man off the street, give him a crossbow and put him through about a month's worth of basic training, and you'd have a reasonably effective soldier. And if you do this with 1,000 young men, all taking cover behind battlements or covering each other as they reloaded, you could field a formidable fighting force in a very short amount of time.
same thing with muskets
Same as rifles nowadays a little bit of basic training and u have a effective soldier Strange to see how war hasent really changed much
An example is like when Paris killed Achilles in "Troy".
@@ariesleo7396 Yup, which is why even though muskets actually still had an inferior rate of fire compared to a longbow, they were the far more ubiquitous weapon once that technology was perfected.
Add on top of that muskets were also more powerful than bows and that's why it became the dominant battlefield weapon for so long.
Funnily enough, crossbow-armed soldiers tended to be paid better than bowmen.
10 days after this video was uploaded, Tod's workshop did a nearly identical test, but using more rigorous measuring (constant 45° angle and using a range finder) and using bolts of different weight. The 93g bolt went 219 yards and the 60g bolt went 238 yards. So, yeah, the 200-250m range is absolutely on point. Specially since 45° angle isn't nearly optimal for maximum range.
I think weather is a factor into the test as well...
So tod did not use 180 gram bolts like modern history tv
@@opmacace523 Except Modern History TV didn't shoot a 180g bolt either.
1- He guessed 180-200g, he didn't weigh it.
2- It looks very much like Tod's 80g, maybe the bigger bolt: 93g.
3- That steel point weighs significantly less than 100g. It fits inside a cylinder of 70mm x 15mm and such a steel cylinder weighs ~100g, but the point is concave and it's also a lot flatter than a cylinder.
@@opmacace523 you got schooled son
@@TheTuttle99 not really
That's why this is my favourite history channel. The most unapologetic historical tests and experiences shining light on history.
thanks for your support!
@@ModernKnight Hey, you should talk to Tod of Tod's workshop, if you haven't already, he's done a lot of great crossbow work. ruclips.net/video/44Jn8oBDNCE/видео.html
I love your channel but there is a much easier way to do that
I don't know the answer yet
There must be an easier
I'm so glad you didn't scrap the video. You're right, things do go wrong. And it was nice to see the accuracy including all that could have gone into these breaking down. Besides, it was a lovely video to look at. Gorgeous countryside, attractive choice of cloths, well spoken, very nice cinematography, and cool looking weapon. Overall a very nice video. 👍
Thanks, that's very kind of you!
@@ModernKnight You're welcome. It's just true.
Not sure about a crossbow but 32 deg elevation gets max range on a paintball
@@matts9116 Do paintball guns put a spin on the ball? That might affect it too. I know with airsoft guns the BB has quite a spin to it, and you don't need a lot of elevation to get the most range out of them.
@@joost1120 high end paintball markers intentionally avoid spin as momentum of fluid affects accuracy, some aftermarket barrels and attachments impart spin for better range at the cost of accuracy. 32 deg applies to a lobbed 68 cal ball at ~300fps
LOTR would have been a lot funnier if Legolas has a 1000 lb crossbow.
Yeah, he would fire a single shot and tell the orcs "WAIT!!... One moment" .... O.O .... "okay, I'm loaded, LETS DO THIS!!" aaaaaannnd, repeat.....
Lotr would've been best unwritten
*TWING* *THOCK* “That’s one!” *creak creak creak creak* *TWING* *THOCK* “That’s Two!” *creak creak creak creak*
That’s one creak creak snap damn now I have to repair the whole damn bow for the next two hours lmao
I think Legolas would quit and get a job as a plumber instead lol
I suppose another reason why this is a "siege" crossbow then is that if you're in a castle, or indeed attacking one, you are probably not doing it from the open. You'll be hiding behind a merlon or in a tower or behind a palisade to load and if something does break you'd want to have a few spare crossbows on hand just in case.
did I just read „hiding behind a melon?“ 🍉😂
Crossbowmen usually had Pavises with them for good reason.
The man that killed Richard I was a cook, who went shooting after his duties in the kitchen were done.
In which case, what evidence is there, for windlasses having been hung on something, as opposed to having been 'carefully laid on the ground'?
@@alexk7973 XD
We've all heard the medieval battlefield wisdom of the crossbowman: "never let your windlass fall funnily".
that should be one of those traditional sayings that gets used but no-one understands properly.
@@ModernKnight May I ask, who made the crossbow?
My grandpa was always saying something like that. "Careful lad, mind the windlass!".
@@d.aardent9382 Wind is also a fart, and lasses can push wind from two sources, but it's not worth quiffering over. I saw some blow dart professional lasses in Thailand with incredible skills. Bow dart or blow dart involve a windlass.
@@dleet86 wut
For how many shots you're getting, I think you have to take the name as a cue: It's a siege crossbow. It's a thing you take pot-shots with while you're waiting for days, trying to starve the opponent into submission. That's why the refire rate is so thoroughly sacrificed. You're hanging out in a trench, keeping your eye open for one of the enemy to poke their heads out from behind cover. Just one of these moving in the trenches around a castle under siege and the defenders have to be careful about showing themselves.
Or for the folks on the castle wall, likewise, this is another weapon that's more nimble than a ballista, that you can sneak around to different positions around the ramparts and give attackers a reason to stay further back.
That's my guess: A device like this isn't so much ABOUT the open battlefield. It's about making your opponent make hard choices or take stupid risks during the long weeks of a siege. Hence the name, "siege crossbow". That's why the slow, finicky reload time is an acceptable trade-off.
Okay, the crossbow was cool and the "what could go wrong" discussion was informative, but I want that leather vest, cause that looks great.
Looks a WW2 British Army jerkin.
You'd almost need 3 people and 3 crossbows; one to keep them loaded, one to hand the loaded one to the crossbowman, and one to fire. I wonder if Todd Cutler could help determine whether the bow is in optimum condition. In fact, I bet he already has data on draw weight, range, etc.
The boots with it.
@@danq.5140 Exactly! Knew a former British Commando who wore a leather 'waistcoat' like that.
The boots are even more amazing.
I thought this was going to be the medieval equivalent to a .50 BMG exploding in your face.
Saw that video too eh
Just coming from watching Kentucky's video of that, i was very scared.
@@sanuelkessler8435 dude almost got his artery severed he is really lucky. Do a video search of .50 ricochet once it’s scary too.
@@chrisg2739 I saw that one years ago, the ricochet takes off the guys earpro!
@@chrisg2739 Just put a thumb in it!
It "feels" like these would be used more like a gun, more like a snipers weapon in a direct, fairly close range. The showering down attack from above in a full on blitz fashion, is obviously far better suited to arrows in terms of efficiency - and cost! But the deadly affect of the bolt and set up time required feels like it would be way better suited for picking people off in closer ranges. Great vid!
Going after officers?
I agree, the crossbow was known to be a peasants weapon or whatever, because any peasant could shoot and without years of training like professional archers. So I'm not surprised that it has very poor range, because these battle crossbows aren't really used for long range precision.
@@memukanofpersiaandmedia2668 Plus they would fire as a volley group at the same targets.
I always thought of the crossbow as a hard-hitting penetrator used in extremely close quarters
A group of my friends did some similar tests about 4 years ago. Your results seem to be a little low but not that far off. We were getting maximum ranges of about 150 yards with most being about 140 and after a day we were reliably getting 4 shots in a minute, just under 20 seconds to reload. We also had 2 major malfuntions from 10 bows and at least twice as many minor issues over the day.
good to know my results weren't a complete outlier!
Tod from Tod's workshop tested his heavy crossbow some years ago and he actually got around 200 meters when shooting for range
His bolts were twice as light
Bolt weight is going to make a big difference
And angle of crossbow.
@@ericwilliams1659 Angle was similar, but I wasn't sure about the weight
@@ericwilliams1659 judging by the flag, he's also shooting into the (light) wind. Then there's aerodynamics, if you shoot at 45° angle, your arrow will encounter a bit more air on it's journey. (but air up high is less dense). So the ideal angle for max distance, on flat ground, should actually typically be less than 45°C; between 45° & 30°.
Thank you for putting the video out. What I appreciate most about your videos is how down to earth, and relevant they are to real life of the period. The little things you find and point out is what you don't get from any other historical teaching.
4:19 He's winding in the wrong direction because the draw rope is rubbing on the metal bar. If he simply winds in the opposite direction it will wind easier.
Probably why it snapped.
same thoughts!
*marksman trying to wind up his crossbow*
-the enemy soldier: "dude are you done? the battle is over i wanna go home"
"This is a siege. We want you to go home and leave us in peace!"
Go away or I'll taunt you a second time
@@bizybliztaverage9414 😆
"I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
Absolute classic.
I absolutely loved this episode. I’m a novice Archer who’s been getting more and more into archery and being able to see this type of medieval crossbow was very cool.
Well, the underperformance is interesting as in of itself.
Things in wartimes were messy, nothing was in tip top condition when going to the battlefield, and considering that in historical testing is a thought provoking exercise.
Why would you expect that people wouldn´t maintain their weapons?
@@Br1cht I'm not talking about maintenance, there is record of careful and instructed maintenance to most weapons, even as far back as the medieval times.
I'm talking about wear and tears that would occur to weapons WHILST still in the heat of battle. A weapon would have to endure grueling circumstances for up to an hour, sometimes beyond in campaigns or under siege, and considering their effectiveness under those circumstances is not something you see on medieval weapon testing all that much.
Some of the underperformance is also too steep of a shooting angle; 45 degrees is only best when ignoring drag. The best range would be with a somewhat flatter trajectory. It would definitely still underperform even if he fixed that though; maybe an extra 25% range, but not double.
@@Br1cht Every crossbow user would know not to drive tent pegs with it, and to keep it unstrung in rain. However, only be so much can be done with component level damage, especially those that require a forge to fix.
If the windlass fails and dry fires the bow, there may be permanent damage to the metal limbs like the tempering. This will reduce the power and safety, if the loops attaching the string and the bow were not also damaged. If those are also damaged, the stopgap solution might make it pitifully weak, since there is a risk to stringing it to the intended draw weight with common rope without the reinforcements.
@@FireStormOOO_ Depending on the acceleration of the bolt you could probably calculate the optimal angle so the gravity vector is counteracted. But I think as a rule of thumb 30 degrees should be better.
When range testing, I would recommend lowering the shot angle a bit. Ideal firing angle with air resistance is actually around 38 degrees, and you are shooting into the wind so you actually need to go even lower to max out your range.
This
@C If there is wind coming at you, you want to shoot lower for more range.
Kyle, where is your video?
Nerd
@@matthewchewning8061 I don't have access to long range shooting propery right now, so a demo isn't possible. I'd love to start making videos eventually but I need access to the right facilities/property.
Typically around 60 paces = 100m, so 120-130 paces is about 200-220m. It depends a little on your height and gait, but in the infantry we spent a day during map-reading to get our pace, and it was pretty close to 60 for almost all of us (55-70) per 100m.
If you mean 'steps' rather than 'paces' (a pace is two steps, every time your right foot hits the ground), 130steps is only 100 m or so, but 130 paces is probably a little over 200 m more if you have a long stride.
Could it also be the 200+yard/meter expected range could be from a high battlement? I'm no rocket doctor but shooting 40ish feet above the ground could add a lot of distance?
Indeed it does
Battlements also tend to be built on high ground, so you might well be adding a significant bit of downhill too.
Additionally 45 degrees is only correct in a vacuum, so on the moon he’d do well but 35-30 degrees would be better here in earth
I was wondering the same thing!
itd also help if he wasnt shooting into a headwind
Looks like you're shooting with a fairly strong head-wind; that almost certainly makes a fairly significant difference with such a large projectile (as compared to a modern bullet). I think with a head-wind you want to shoot lower than 45 degrees. The optimistic 200 to 250 yards could be with a tail-wind, or there could be other factors. Hard to be sure what power level of crossbow, what angle they were shooting, and what conditions would be like.
my suggestion for that 250yd would be shooting from an elevated positionwith a tailwind
When shooting bows, what difference do you see, maybe post a video, you do have a bow?
@@b-beale1931 My guess is the elevated position -- typically from the top of a castle wall - would about double the range. The higher the further, anyway.
@@gerardvila4685 if you are sieging a fortification i think the only reason to use missiles is to suppress the soldiers on the walls while doing other things anyway. if you are defending, much better of course. plenty of time to reload and safer to shoot. matt easton recently made a video about the use of ladders and missile weapons together in a siege, very interesting.
Also humidity play a role also. Humidity on crossbow and bow alike affects heavily the ropes tensions and the speed due to the resistance that it causes
I used a selfmade crossbow for larp (which has far less power), but I can recommend waxing the part where the bolt and string move and the string as well. I reduces friction a lot and protects from moisture.
Looks like you are dragging the bow string over an already set nut for the trigger, that may be what is destroying your string. Tod from Tod Workshop is adamant about not doing it that way which makes sense that you are dragging a rope under 1k pressure over a metal nut. Been watching both of you guys for a long time, keep up the great content.
Tod's videos on his crossbows are excellent, he really knows what he's talking about when it comes to the practical mechanics of crossbow design.
I like his observations too on how despite being very high draw weight, steel crossbows have to be that high because of the energy loss from steel bows compared to the efficiency of wood and the weight of the bow limbs themselves effecting the momentum, combined with the short draw length it imparts way less energy to the bolt than people would assume.
Still excellent weapons in the right situation like castle defence or a line of crossbowmen with some anti-cavalry defences, but not so amazing that a trained longbowman was instantly obsolete.
@@G1NZOU yes, everytime I hear about the massive draw weight of one of these, I always think about just how heavy those limbs are, and how much of that power is wasted moving those massive limbs forward. I have to wonder whether a lighter crossbow, perhaps the sort drawn with a goat's foot lever, would be more efficient than this sort of heavier crossbow, even in a siege situation. I can't imagine why anyone would use this weapon in a battle though. After taking one shot, you are stuck with a cumbersome piece of lumber and steel that is going to take at least half a minute if not more to reload.
@@simonphoenix3789 Sieges, unlike in movies, tend to take days, weeks or months even. you can very well afford the time to wind up the crossbow in the safety of your tower, gatehouse or keep, and be slow and steady in a dry place, whilst weather disease and the prospect of another force rushing to your aid from the outside are slowly grating on the attackers.
That string is holding far in excess of 1000lb, due physics it could be well over a ton or two
It's the slow trigger release. The 'string' is dragging over the nut to actually release as the trigger is depressed too slowly. The force of the bow is triggering the release at the very last instant.
He's squeezing it like a gun trigger, instead of the quick 'click' it needs.
I can visualize horrible accidents, so glad no one got hurt.
For sure, especially if you get the windliss hook in the face
No kidding even half drawn there's a lot of energy stored in that bow.
The reason why it only went 120 paces is because steel is a terribly inefficient bow material and the powestroke is very short and the historical nuts are made of antler which is lighter
Antler nuts are a much earlier crossbow fitting, and I'm certain wouldn't work at this poundage.
@@ModernKnight professional crossbowmaker Andreas Bischer makes composite horn crossbows of 1200 lb with antler nuts. There are no evidence of medieval nuts made of steel or iron, only antler nuts with metal reinforcement or brass and the brass nuts are for Siege. In fact steel prods itself only started getting used in the military in the 15th century which is pretty much the end of the medieval period
@@ModernKnight antler nuts continued to be used beyond the medieval period including renaissance and enlightenment period
Later war-weight ones from the museum examples I've seen all use steel. Maybe it's different outside western Europe? But fair enough I'm on no way a crossbow expert. I defer to your greater knowledge.
@@ModernKnight can I see the examples? Are these post medieval period? Yes steel was used after the medieval period
As the banner behind you clearly showed, there was a stong wind against you while you were shooting. That also might effect the distance.
And a lighter bolt would help. Another thing, the max distance would not be from shoot at 45 degree. With air resistance and past military test (for max range on artillery), it would be around 40 or lower degree I guess (I remember artillery gets max range around 42 degree).
Also: these weapons were for use during sieges primarily which implies being fired from a high platform like a turret or a siege tower.
@@DCdabest I was wondering the same thing: the boost in angle would surely make a difference to both range and impact!
Here’s the thing about Artillery/Ballistic trajectories, guys. They are “elastic”. A real-life example: Imagine spraying a stream of water from a hose. The higher you elevate the hose, the further away the stream will hit the ground - TO A POINT. Elevating past that point results in achieving LESS range. That point is exactly 45 degrees/800mils of elevation. In the Field Artillery, we referred to “low angle fire” (less than 45 degrees elevation) vs “high angle fire” (more than 45 degrees elevation). High-angle fire is more the province of mortars, used at shorter ranges, more to counter the defilade positions of targets. Low angle fire is more used in Field Artillery - 105mm and larger weapons. Longer ranges, and the only thing high angle fire does is make your projectiles easier for radar systems to track back to you, and increase projectile time of flight, and therefore your response time in fire support. So yes 45 degrees elevation is your max range.
@@tatumergo3931 You bet your ass, Redleg! FAOBC 12-89, FACBOC ?/89 and FATASOC 3/90. FDO/PL B-3/8 FAR XVIII ABN Corps Arty Gulf War I, Military Order of Saint Barbara. My gunnery instructor was a CPT Thomas, who, in spite of being an Annapolis Jarhead, was the BEST instructor we could have asked for. Takes one to know one, you must be too?
Please don't tell me something bad happens... After watching what happened with Kentucky ballistics.. I can't take that kind of thing right now
I hear that Tom!
And then, instead of Ian McCollum from Forgotten Weapons, we'll get Tod Todeschini from Tod's Workshop to examine the footage.
@@GerackSerack LOL I love that
Was just thinking the same thing. That is quite the powerful steel bow.
Made me wonder if he was filming it alone
@@JonatasAdoM no someone else is filming, when the camera zooms and moves up there are very subtle movements/shaking(you can barely notice, the camera is on a tripod i think.) besides it is good common sense that when you play around with crossbows/weapons, you should take someone with you.
Unquestionably this is an outstanding living history channel. A presentation such as this, showing things as they are (were), warts and all, is a great pleasure to view.
Refreshing to me, also- you're right! 🌿
Goodness! CB Cardille-. My all time favorite when I was a kid! We used to skate in Monroeville Mall when the Penguins weren't practicing!!! A show I try to watch every Saturday night now is Creature Features. Similar in a way to Chilly Billy and Chiller Theatre! In fact, about 6 weeks ago they did a shout out to his great show back then and later showed night of the Living Dead !!! Do well- go Steelers, Pirates and Penguins- God bless America!!!🇺🇸
If you fired from a castle wall, perhaps you could obtain 200 yards given the the elevation gain you fire from.
shoot... not fire
@Erwin Spaan well we all know what @Joel Thompson meant👍🏻. Even Jason Kingsley, from Modern History TV, used the word 'fire' at the start of this particular Crossbow video. ✌🏻
@@stoker1931jane Whatever, the word is 'shoot'.
@@gerhardheydrich3146 but what if you light your arrow/bolt/rock on fire before shooting? :o
distance gain = (horizontal speed of bolt) x (time taken for an object to hit ground from elevation point)
So glad you didn't scrap this one! I'd love to see a follow-up video focusing on how reliable (or not) these things really were and especially how that reliability would compare to early firearms. The unreliability of early firearms gets discussed a lot, I think with the implication that alternatives like the crossbow were much more reliable. After watching this I can't help but wonder if perhaps the difference is significantly smaller than commonly believed, or if firearms were actually MORE reliable than a monster crossbow like this (the only comparable infantry weapon in terms of range, power, and ease of use that I can think of) over the course of a long battle. I don't think I've ever actually seen an in-depth look at this reliability angle and if/how it affected the adoption of firearms.
To be fair on the reliability angle, this crossbow is a decorative piece not made for shooting. Evidenced by the string serving being not tight, made of regular twisted rope, and not even waxed. I wouldn't be brave enough to shoot it even once without fitting a proper string and inspecting/tuning the trigger action first. The right thing to do would be to make a video with someone who shoots heavy crossbows regularly.
@@blahblah3347 Nowhere does he say it's a decorative replica. From all the videos he's done it's clear he gets top quality stuff(we all would if we could afford it!) from proper craftsmen. If it were just a wallhanger there'd be no need to give it a 1,000lb prod, norsuch a carefully engineered windlass. If he says it's 1,000lb either he of the maker has tested the draw weight. A well waxed string would definately help as you say, as would some for of lubrication on the stock grove where the bolt & string rub along.
@@2bingtim Every medieval crossbow I ran into had the same problems. I don't know why, but they are more like a crossbow kit than a functioning thing when sold. The string is made of a rope that looks medieval but frays after a few shots. The hooks on the nut are sharp and cut the string. The trigger is not polished and bumps the string upward on release. The angle between the bow and the stock is not set right.
This crossbow looks very decent, but he still had to get someone a bit experienced to set it up properly for shooting.
@@blahblah3347 Remind me to come and see you after I get my first crossbow
EDIT: FOR THE EXPERTISE, not to assassinate you =D
Ever heard the saying, "They just don't make 'em like they used to"? I'm sure crossbow makers were much more proficient back when they were being regularly used and serviced.
Best medieval channel out there! I hope Jason makes a game about knights with his gaming company. Who's better to provide wealth of knowledge for that kind of endeavor!
Or a medieval "Sniper Elite" with crossbowmen ^^
That would be cool
If Kingdom Come Deliverance really is getting a sequel or prequel, he should be involved. He should have been there for the first one.
You may wanna check out the Czech game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which is extremely historically accurate for the setting in Central Europe and early 15th century time period.
@@AGermanFencer Man, there's not enough games out there with proper heavy crossbow play.
Rate of fire: slow
Chances of surviving getting shot with it: Extremely low
@Dieter Gaudlitz to be fair it’s called a siege crossbow so I don’t think you would take it out to the field unless it’s absolutely necessary.
I'm at the 9:00 mark, and all those lessons from PHY121 class back in my university days is coming back to me. First, there's the equation "Force = Mass x Acceleration". Then there's the splitting of forces into the X (SIN(degs x) x Force) and Y axes (COS(degs x) x Force + Gravity) so you can plot the vectors of the bolt across its flight path. Sadly, the only thing we know is roughly that the arrow was shot at a 45 deg angle. So, yay! I don't have to do maths.
No wonder they were fighting for decades during these times :D
2 years to reach destination, 1 year for a siege, and 1 day for reloading :P
In an open air museum, I learned that if a lord offended the seigelord he would have crossbowmen under the toilets of the castle, to take aim at the lords bum.
www.absolutefacts.nl/img/kastelen/t/gemakken-doornenburg-dubbele-afvoer-buiten.jpg
Picture of medieval toilets
@@philipdemaeyer1665 Doubt you could hit the lord taking a shit though. There's a pretty big moat around the castle. Specifically on the castle you used as an example, since I'm part of the living history group of that castle ;). Unfortunately I've not been there in a few months because of Covid, but I know the place like the back of my hand.
@@Byrvurra different objectives, no need for genocide anymore which is the easiest thing to do nowadays
@@philipdemaeyer1665 Oh noooo!!!!
Very happy you uploaded this even though it didn't perform as expected. I think it teaches another very interesting part of crossbows that people rarely mention
Hi Jason. Great video but I think the 45° angle you were using is the reason why the bolts weren't going very far. Shooting at that steep an angle not only slows the bolts down rapidly due to the increase in felt gravity on them, they're also using twice the amount of energy to travel the same distance as if they were shot at a flatter trajectory. They're moving diagonally at that angle and then falling out of the sky. I have studied ballistics and hold firearms. Try shooting at a 15 or 20° angle and I'm certain the effective range will increase.
This was a very enlightening demonstration of the potential reliability shortfalls of an otherwise potentially devastating weapon. I appreciate your taking the time to pivot the direction of the piece when it became apparent that things were not going to plan, and then sit down and reason out some of the implications of what you'd experienced. Thank you very much for your time and another piece of quality content.
If it's not too forward of me to ask, would you be willing to revisit this at a later date once your crossbow has been repaired? I would be most curious to see the extent to which shooting from an elevated position would influence the potential range of such a crossbow, particularly considering that it is typically referred to as a "siege crossbow", as you pointed out. Of course, there are a number of practical limitations on such an undertaking-- expense, time, and effort required to set up such a demonstration, all come to mind and each of those considerations individually (let alone collectively) might certainly represent significant barriers. It would, of course, be totally understandable if you felt that it wouldn't be as worthwhile as something else altogether.
our pleasure, we thought it was a slightly different perspective, and yes we will be revisiting it when possible
@@ModernKnight Please account for the wind too (maybe just go to where your bolt landed and shoot back towards the start). Then we'll know if it was a significant factor.
@@ModernKnight I believe the underperformance of this crossbow shows that focusing solely on the draw weight of a crossbow is not particularly useful because the draw weight is only 1 out of at least 3 factors that determines the power of a crossbow. The power of a crossbow (or bow) is determined by draw weight, power stroke, and efficiency. Even though this 1000 lb draw weight crossbow seems powerful, the actual amount of energy delivered through the bolt is quite low because it has a low powerstroke (5.5-6 inches) and uses an inefficient heavy steel prod that snap back slowly (much more inefficient compared to wood, composite, or modern materials). For example, assuming this 1000 lb draw weight crossbow with a 6 inch powerstroke has 45% prod efficiency, it would shoot an arrow/bolt with a roughly comparable amount of power to a 140 lb draw weight longbow with a 26 inch powerstroke (32 inch draw length) that has 75% prod efficiency.
140 x 26 (1/2) x .75 efficiency = 1365
VS
1000 x 6 (1/2) x .45 efficiency = 1350
steel crossbows are overated. Wood and composite crossbows are much more superior in efficiency and need more attention
Yes. If results from replicas reflect the performance of historical crossbows, steel crossbow existed solely for ease of manufacture & maintenance. I still believe historical steel crossbows performed a bit than Tod's & other contemporary replicas, but there's no way they could match horn crossbows. If nothing else, steel crossbow weigh far more than horn ones, making them cumbersome for the field. They make sense for defending walls & the like, because they can be keep ready to shoot without too much fuss. (Though still some fuss. This video shows how things can go wrong.) & big steel crossbow like this still deliver enough kinetic energy to plenty dangerous, especially if show from an elevated position.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Steel crossbows were not something simple to make, had to have a very good smith just to get the temper right in the steel. Could easily kill the shooter if the steel limbs breaks.
@B. H. Abbott-Motley remember steel crossbows emerged the last 10% of crossbow history. In other words they were still experimenting but it quickly got replaced by firearms
@Andreas Fjellborg meanwhile a simple wooden prod takes very little skill to make and there’s plenty of craftsmen available for that. a 100lb@20” wooden crossbow can outperform a 400lb@6” steel crossbow , the only disadvantage of the wooden prod is it needs to be wide
If you have any Tywin Lannisters lying around, maybe next time you should test the crossbow on those
@8:30 "slow firing". It's a difficult habit to lose. : ) In our reenacted French compagnie d’arbalètes, we say "Lâche! - Loose!". If you say "Fire" you have to do push-ups until you can hand-span the crossbow. ;D Btw, Video Génial !
lol, yes and many figures of speech only work that way, like slow firing, rather than slow loosing, but you're completely right!
@@ModernKnight Hello. Quick and serious question, where can I get such nicely done and authentically looking boots like yours? All that I find look very bad or are cosplay quality.
I remember Mike Loades talking about a 1000lb crossbow and that even though the bow itself is 1000lb, it wouldn’t achieve that power because the actual length of the draw was very short so because of that you lose a lot of the potential of the bow
Todd's Workshop does a very good explanation and comparison of the efficiencies of different bow designs. All design choices are compromises between different advantages and disadvantages.
Yes, the energy transfer is not that efficient. Even a steel bow with very high draw weight will lose a fair bit of that energy while transfering it to a bolt over a short takeoff distance (the draw). The central position of the typical European crossbow release mechanism and the technology for late-medieval and early modern steel bows limited the effective length of the draw.
Historical single-shot Chinese crossbows kind of got around the issue by inventing a more pistol grip-like release mechanism at the back end of a crossbow, lengthening the draw for the starting position of the bolt. However, the Chinese never got around to using steel bows on their crossbows like in Europe, so the draw weight was reliant on wooden or composite bows.
(Chinese repeating crossbows, though fast to shoot, had even bigger inherent issues with power transfer. They were even weaker than both European and Asian single-shots and their range was also notably more limited as a result. Hence why you see them relegated to personal defence weapons or chokepoint guarding archery weapons. And as Jason also notes, the more complex a crossbow's mechanism, the likelier it is it might malfunction, especially with bad maintenance.)
Ironicly, in Russia (and most of other slavic languages) we use a word based on "arrow", to say "shooting" or "firing" even for firearms or artillery. Like "to arrow an AK, or RPG". Just useless funny fact.
He was also firing into the wind, which would affect the overall range of the shots! Great video thanks!!
Yeah should have reversed the firing position and target to see what difference it made
Have you discussed this with Tod Cutler of Tod’s Workshops? He has done a great deal of work on this sort of weapon system although I have not seen him use one as powerful as 1 000lb draw weight.
Tod's got some that make it look a little smol.
I thought todd cutler at todds workshop got a historical crosbow to fire like 220
@@stevejakubik2649 he did, because he was shooting it right. Shooting a bow of any sort at 45 degree angle isn’t going to get you max distance.
I am watching this video for the 3rd time now. I must say to you that I absolutely enjoy your content. It is very much appreciated that upload videos like that and let the people draw their own conclusions. It is the details like what a knight does once he broke his lance or what happens when a novice handles a siege crossbow in battle that interests me. there are too many archeologists, books and documentaries that are far too sure about what happened without trying it out. I am looking forward to see all of your videos.
I love how this is treat like a business. With a longbow, the longbow is the tool, and the archer is the skilled user, they are a package. You can make the longbow easily, but the bowman is the real investment as it took years to develop strength and skill to be really effective, you couldn't just give the bow to a non-archer and expect results.
With a crossbow, the bow itself is complex to build, but it is so easy to use that the archer is essentially replaceable and the actual investment is the bow. The bow doesn't get old and weak, or out of practice. If the man holding it dies, you can give the same bow to another man and train him very quickly. Because it was so easy to learn how to use, you could store the crossbows until they were needed and even possibly not even have to keep as many trained men on hand during peace time (as longbows took more skills to use and more muscle needed to draw, you would presumably need to keep people in practice all the time to make sure you had a capable number of archers on hand incase war does break out).
It is sad but I bet this also devalued life a bit as the individual bowman was now not as much of a loss as they used to be right? You lose a longbowman, you lose the only person capable of firing that longbow. You lose a crossbowman and you only lose the man, the bow will be used again.
At the risk of debunking my own assumptions, I do have a question though. If the crossbow was easier to use than a longbow, why was being a crossbowman an actual career?
If a skill can be simplified, or automated as is happening these days. This usually results in the operators of that skill being devalued. Was being a crossbowman only a valuable skill when crossbows were new and their operation not widely known? Or was there more to their operation than is widely believed? Thus having a skilled operator would be a valuable enough skill as to be a 'career'.
It looks like you’re cranking in the wrong direction while cocking as the line is rubbing on the lower frame member of the windlass. (Ah yes, the windlass rope frayed and broke after I posted. Perhaps I should wait till the end before commenting.)
Interesting that a modern, 80 lb, compound bow can be effective out to similar distances if the shooter is excellent. But the weight of the arrow is generally about 30 grams. I would think the difference between a 30 and 190-gram projectile would become very apparent with armor involved.
In physics terms, the work done on the bolt/arrow is the force times the distance. The crossbow may have a larger force but the longer bow maintains that force over a longer distance giving the same energy.
During a cyclone the wind imaled a piece of straw through a tree
As Tod would say, "it's a data point." Great video!
It's really informative to see all the different problems that cropped up.
Often people don't include that because they feel it may detract from the story they are trying to tell.
So kudos on including the whole story warts and all.
Thanks, it was something we considered abandoning for later, but decided that some interesting thoughts might come from discussing problems.
I made a target crossbow using a prod made from Noral 75, an alloy used in aircraft manufacture-I found in practice that a shallower angle gave a better range, I suspect that there was less friction on a more horizontal bolt in flight. Cocking the bow was hard work after a while. Thank you for sharing your experience and expertise. Greetings from Tasmania Australia. 👍😁🇦🇺🦘
Great video! It really shows why good crossbowmen were so highly regarded and sought after as mercenaries. These great crossbows are far from simple weapons, and it probably took a well-trained and experienced professional to get the most out of them.
I think most historans say that the bennefit of crossbows, is that unlike longbows, they DON'T require a lot of specialist skills. Longbowmen needed to be trained from childhood, where crossbows could be used by virually any soldier.
I'm sure there's SOME degree of a skill factpr, but both the power, and release are lregulated by the weapon (unlike longbows), so they can't vary no matter how skilled/unskilled you are.
So elevation is the only real areas where skill could affect range (different if you're shooting for targets, rather than range, but the point still stands).
@@bxdxggxdxb2775 Yeh, self bows are easier to make but take far more training to use. Crossbows are harder to make but take far less training to use.
@@bxdxggxdxb2775 Well... The reason Crossbowmen were expensive (aside from needing to be able to reload at an efficient rate. I don't know about crossbows, but I know that people using early firing arms actually had to prove they were capable of reliably reloading the gun at a certain rate if they wanted to join a mercenary regiment as gunners) is probably also because they had to supply those crossbows themselves and well... Bows take a lot of practice to make, but in the end they only require wood, some kind of string and the tools required to work those things. Crossbows on the other hand typically had either a forged steel or composite bow as well as a more complex firing mechanism and thus required more expensive materials and a greater selection of different skills to make.
I suspect the skill regarding crossbows, particularly siege crossbows, came in the maintenance and loading/reloading stages.
Using a windlass as quickly and efficiently as possible while you're under attack probably took a fair bit of skill and discipline.
Aiming and firing may have been easier, but that's only one part of the equation.
As with any weapon they do require a lot of skill to get the most out of them but the biggest contrast between bows and crossbows in that regard is the barrier to entry. Crossbows are far easier to get good enough at to be effective. It is also worth noting that the two were not mutually exclusive. One was not inherently preferred over another and in fact some armies wanted them both as they complimented each other. The suppressing and continuous "fire" of a bow combined with the power at modest range of the crossbow.
I CAN'T thank you enough for this channel and for Rebellion Developments. I just made the connection recently, AvP was one of my favorite all time games and I watch this channel whenever I play something of the relevant historical time period. You guys have done such an incredible job at everything you've touched and again I cannot thank you enough for what you've helped bring into the world!
Thanks for your support. It's nice to be able to do several things that please people.
I have to say, that the crossbow you're using looks very "small and weak" compared to what i was shown as an example of a "siege crossbow" in a museum. It used a heavier bolt with a longer bow and longer draw. Maybe 25-40% larger in both dimensions compared to what you're using? I vaguely seem to recall something about 15kg weight(and that it (normally) needs a support while shooting)... What you're using is what i've been shown to be a "normal windlass crossbow".
And 130 paces is definitely not long enough to stand up to ranges we historically KNOW that crossbows have been used at. So yeah, definitely something is not working as it should. Due to the fraying, my first guess would be that the string might be too short? So that there's too high tension on it while unloaded. Check if it can be redone so that the string in unloaded position is, maybe an inch, maybe even two, further forward. The string also seem to scrape against the wood far too much.
And while things break, crossbows are very much not supposed to break THAT easily. Getting 10-ish shots off during a battle without it breaking for at least 90% should be realistic. Otherwise realworld accounts of battles using crossbows just cannot make sense, they literally become impossible. And they were definitely high on maintenance, but well maintained, getting several shots off without issue SHOULD be normal. So again, yeah, you're definitely doing something wrong. Also, maintenance includes DAILY or at minimum weekly stuff, keeping both wood, metal and string treated properly. How likely is it that your crossbow has been maintained at least on a weekly basis? My guess is, not even close.
Oh, and BTW, 45 degrees angle is for theoretical optimal range, for actual optimal range you need to aim slightly lower, the lighter the projectile is compared to its air resistance, the lower you need to adjust. Otherwise, you're spending more energy on having the bolt moving vertically than horizontally. And now i notice that several others have commented on this as well.
And of course you should post a video even if it is a "failure", because that's part of learning what does NOT work, meaning that you can hopefully use it to figure out what DOES work in the future.
He was also firing into what seemed to me some quite substantial headwind...
Imaging spending forever to reload your crossbow in a giant castle siege... and then someone else steals your kill right after you released your shot.
Bretheren momentus
Guillaume du Bellay (1491 - 1543) in Discipline Militaire (edition of 1592) :
"Amongst other less common weapons are bow and crossbow, two weapons that can do great damage against unarmoured (lit. "naked") or poorly armed people. And just as in rainy weather the arquebusier wastes its season (literal translation of idiom, sense here "turns useless"), and if it wasn't that the archers and crossbowmen cannot carry as many ammunitions for their bows and crossbows as the arquebusiers can for their arquebuses ; I would laud the archers and crossbowmen both for their quickness to shoot - which is much more sudden - and the sureness of their shot, which is not useless.
I admit the arquebusier can shoot from further away, nevertheless the archer and the crossbowman will kill a naked man at 100 or 200 steps just as well as the best arquebusier ; and some times so well that the harness if it's not of the strongest will not resist it. *Else the solution is that they will shoot from as close as they can* : and if it happens we will find more people injured or killed by them than by twice as many arquebusiers."
That was written by Raimond de Fourquevaux, originally published in French in 1548. Fourquevaux, an experienced commander, did have surprisingly high opinion of crossbows & gave the example of how a single crossbower killed & wounded many more of the enemy than the best arquebusiers at a siege in the 1520s.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I am not sure what you are exactly answering to, but the snippet above is translated, as cited, from the Discipline Militaire of 1592, which is an augmented version of the Instructions sur le faict de la guerre of 1548. The work was attributed since period to Guillaume du Bellay, who was working on treatises for the king.
Fouquevaux is supposedly the lord who found those manuscripts after du Bellay's death and brought them for printing without, according to the his word and this of the printer, modifying the original author's text.
I had an uncle who made something like that some 50 year ago. Had more penetrative power than a shotgun and the steel bolt ended up bending in on itself when it hit a tree.
Shhh!! The anti 2A people will want to go after our crossbows once they get rid of guns.
This weapon requires quite a lot of work. Very cumbersome to use. This is enlightening.
It would be a two man operation
No wonder sieges lasted so long! Nowadays, so much more efficient, we can go to war at lunchtime and be finished by breakfast next day with maximum destruction. Might not even know anything about it until the 6pm news
One of my favorite youtube channels for sure!
My favourite channel! Glad to see you back. Have missed you during the pandemic!
Absolutely appreciate you presenting this video, with all the considerations about circumstances and conditions, rather than you not doing so because of the 'failures'.
In experiments, 'successful' or not, one learns something. In this case, that means we all had this chance to learn this stuff too.
Cheers!
I agree
If you look at the flag and which way the wind is blowing, you might see why it didn't perform quite as expected. :))))
Thank you, no one ever seems to account for wind
and his legs might be a bit longer than a typical medieval person's?
My mind the whole video : wind wind wind wind ....
And I thought muskets were slow. Sheesh. Still cool though. And historically interesting for sure.
One advantage of the corssbow over the bow, that's almost never pictured: you can span it and wait a whole day for the best moment to shoot. With a strong war bow you can hold the spanned string for about 20 seconds maximum!
They aren't built for that, though. That would put a lot of strain on the bow and the string.
I would like to point out that looking at that flag you had there, wind was working against you. It definitely had an impact on range, specifically when bold is losing it's velocity. Wind will push on feathers and slow it down. Maybe that maximum range was in perfect conditions with wind working in your favour and not against you.
I appreciate a person who is so thorough and authentic with their analysis and not wanting to misinform people.
Not gonna lie, thought that title was gonna have this video going in a whole different direction after Scott from Kentucky Ballistics accident. Glad to see it didn't though, crossbows may be easier to work with but comes at such a trade off for that lower skill bracket. War always has those trade offs though.
I watched that too after Gun Jesus mentioned and linked it. Nasty business, and that neck scar was brutal. Mad respect for him and hid dad for keeping their head cool and knowing what to do in that situation. “Just Put A Thumb In It" indeed...
I guess alot if us like watching things being shot
I always thought of crossbows as these powerhouses that couldn't be stopped. Now they seem very cumbersome and underwhelming because of the mechanical failures and reloading mechanism. Not to mention the short distance it can shoot. You'd think something with 1klb behind it would send a bolt half way across the country. Very surprising and informative video, thank you!
Its because of the physics of using metal as the bow compared to spring like wood. Its like rubberband vs steelwire. That is why the draw weight is crazy yet they dont shoot that hard.
The crossbow is hugely less efficient than ordinary bows. This is due to a tiny power stroke, massive limb weight, much thicker & heavier strings, friction of the string over the stock. One reason heavy bolts were used is because they use what energy is delivered most efficeintly. It is an excellent sniping tool as you can sight down the stock direct for close range shooting.
Even when steel prod 1,000lb crossbows came about, lighter, more simply spanned crossbows remained in use by most crossbowmen.
I'd think range can be extended with HEAVIER bolts. Abundance of draw weight with short power stroke means that you can get more usable energy with heavier projectile. And heavier bolt = better ballistic coefficient, i.e. the air slows it less than a lighter bolt. At least that's my basic physics understanding :D
There are images in the books of hours in which you can see that the crossbowmen have got spare strings over their shoulders where you can count up to 8 sets of spare bow strings.
I would imagine they must have performed a drill with their crossbows, much as the regular Bowman had to practice on a nearly daily basis. We know about the daily basis and go because there were laws that required them to practice on a daily basis.
Longbowmen also carried extra strings. Thus the term “second string”.
I know the genoan crossbowmen (soldiers of fortune) aworked in pairs where one spanned a crossbow while the shooty guy shot the other crossbow, because they viewed rate of fire as being superior to bolts in a volley. Do you think this was the norm for a regular medieval army or would two guys be shooting their own crossbows?
History tells us that military best practise is soon adopted by all. Remember these people were intelligent, they just didn't have the accumulated knowledge that we have.
I own two crossbows that I use during hunting bow season. One is a recurve bow at 150lbs draw weight and the other is a compound bow at 180lbs draw weight.
I can just about cock the recurve by hand but have to use a simple string pulley for the compound, I think it gives a 2:1 advantage. I find I'm almost there by hand but as you get closer to your body your arms are no longer straight and you lose leverage. I usually find myself an inch short but it may as well be a mile. The extra 30lbs is just enough to stop me.
Anyway, I carry a spare string when I'm out with the recurve and can re-string it myself. The compound bow I would have no chance with due to the cam system employed, if the bowstring breaks then I'm done and taking it to an archery shop.
That's why if I'm away for a few days I always take both.
Thank you Sir for posting this. I appreciate your efforts to illuminate and instruct. Well done, Sir Knight.
Thank you kindly
I was afraid the damn thing was going to break while you drew the string back and hurt you. Looks damn dangerous. I wouldn't go near the damn thing without safety glasses on.
That was my first thought when I saw the title. I was surprised not to see a face shield. He had probably tested it a few times so was actually more comfortable with what to expect.
I have to wonder if safety glasses would provide much protection.
Try 30-35 degrees elevation for maximum range. That’s a very heavy draw weight but a very short draw.
Glad you weren't hurt!
Jason I have a question I wonder about. How did people in medieval times carry around their things while traveling on foot? Did they use backpacks and satchels like today?
Shadiversity covered this in a video a couple of weeks ago. Problems with the Adventurer's Backpack, if you're interested.
@@Vulcan8742 Thank you! I'll give it a watch
Based on the direction your standard is wafting, you are shooting directly into the wind. That would certainly impact the distance the bolt would travel. Perhaps each bowman had multiple crossbows already prepped and only had to add the bolt and fire.
as far as I remember the physics lessons during my study, it's not 45°, but 30° - 35°, that gives you the longest range.
That was my understanding as well.
@@lancepickett5653 Yup, 45 would be in a perfect vacuum but with air resistance and density changes not so much. You'll see archers instinctively shooting for range at about those angels all the time. Basically because they've learned what works best.
The ballistics equation for range use the sine and cosine if the angle of elevation. In its simplest from the distance contains the sine of double the angie of elevation, which for maximum range this term must equal 1, and therefore the only angle of elevation where this is true is 45 degrees.
@@MrBottlecapBill yes, the ballistics equations are based on simplifications such as the Earth being flat, no air resistance, the projectile beings point of no mass, gravitational forces being constant and no coriolis effect. Real world shooting needs to take all of these and more into effect.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 So you are saying.. pilots learn to fly their planes based on "a flat, non rotating earth" ( to use the exact wording in military documents on the topic), but have to figure it all out on their own once licensed?
This channel is something special, it truly is. Can’t believe I’ve only just found it. Thanks for all of this amazing content 👍
Glad you enjoy it!
If you're up on a wall, you can probably shoot it at a lower angle so more of the energy is going towards the distance rather than being lost to gravity
You could get 250 yards shooting from battlements. That would be a fun video like this one
That would be in the fine print if they had fine print. A favorable wind would help also,
That is a very astute insight. Some historian might have read some first hand account of besiegers staying 250 yards from the battlement to avoid getting hit by the siege crossbows. They didn't consider how the height of the battlement affected range. Factor in that the 250 yards probably had a safety margin in built in and I can see how that crossbow shooting those bolts at ground level doesn't get close to 250 yards.
Looking at the flag 9:10 hes shooting into the wind, would have been nice if he swapped ends to see how much the wind change effected overall distance.
He could always go visit Shad in the Shadlands to test that out, I've heard he's got a castle with Machicolations!!!
@@cocodojo MACHICOLATIONNNNNSSSSSSSAAAAH!!!!!
A man of culture
question: If these were used from a castle, could the height of the firing platform be responsible for the longer recorded ranges?
Absolutely. That's one of the points of building high.
What a brilliant and honest video. I love the straight forward and frankness your account is of the crossbow. It's funny really. I have always preferred the look of a crossbow compared to the longbow, and I have had both in the past. But as you have shown, the longbow is so much better in every way.
Tod of Tod´s Workshop should take a look at this crossbow. Maybe he can stop the fraying and the failing of the windlass string.
Goodness! My heart almost stopped beating when I saw that windlass rope snap... 😱
For an archer/crossbowman one of the most horrifying thoughts is dry firing due to breaking of the string or windlass.
Very nice demo showing that the relative ease of use and lower training requirements of the crossbow comes at the cost of very high technological complexity and susceptibility to failure.
What will serve you best for your campaigns only history will tell you. 😁
mine too, snapping ropes under this sort of tension are dangerous!
Had a similar experience recently: pulley ropes breaking during works on a historically rigged sail ship. Nothing happened, but it's so nasty in that moment...
When I was a kid I made a working crossbow out of legos. Even the bolt was a sharpened Lego. Used rubber band for bowstring. So powerful it stuck into the Sheetrock from 30’ away. That’s approx 10 meters for you folks across the pond. 12 yr old me was impressed.
The durability issue must have been a huge concern in hot humid areas.
I remember in Texas, the humidity alone did in a number of my pencils
Yeah warfare with crossbows was historically rough in Texas
@@samarkand1585👌🏻😆
Weapons made of wood and iron were constantly treated with oils to keep them funtional for as long as possible.
We know of several medieval battles in which crossbows were severly handicaped by rain.
I don't know if it's the camera angle but it looks like you are giving it too much angle. Great vid thumbs up
Ha, I thought he wasn't giving enough but as you said camera angles.
@@Mike91975 yeah I agree it's hard to really know what's going on without being there in person. Take care stay safe
I did longbow archery for ten years,
Looking at your crossbow, I'd say that you need to rub your string with a block of bee's wax, I used to keep my serving (String) regularly rubbed with bee's wax, best thing to stop fraying occuring.
Cheers Paul Foster
I have been watching your videos for about a year now - and I have only just discovered that you are an actual knight of the british crown. I have even played a few of your previous undertakings. Thank you for quality content!
Thanks and welcome
Thank you for posting this! Its massively interesting! Would love to see more weapon experiments
thanks for watching.
Probably did not help that torture device slipped off the draw string a few times. I can only imagine that the hooks as the "slide off" the draw string in a weird angle. Probably doesnt do the string any favors.
Reload time is like..."You're not in a rush are you?"