So much wisdom in just over 15 minutes of your elaboration... I actually agree with you on many points. I also think that the SIL would have been issued to specialists that are brought into the fight in very specific situations. Their range would be shorter than the range of the regular archers as their bows would be weaker, and of course their weapons would be more complex = expensive. I think a medieval SIL is very comparable to the modern day light machine gun. You don't give one of these to every soldier. You bring in the machine gun when you need to fight against lots of opponents that are not too far away, maybe approaching or running away. You just need to shoot as many arrows against them in shortest possible amount of time? THAT is when a SIL would be most useful. In an open field battle, that would be the case if the enemy's infantry men are charging and come within a 100 meters or so to your own army. Of course this is also the case in many other fighting scenarios, just as you said. Raids on a convoy. Naval battles. But I do think there would have been SIL battalions in regular armies as well. I also agree that you need trained soldiers that can competently operate the SIL. But I do believe that it takes much less training to become a good SIL man than to become a good longbow warrior. We are talking a few weeks, maybe three months, until a peasant can be called a SIL specialist. It takes many years to become a proficient longbow man who can handle a powerful warbow, and only talented people will qualify in the first place. I think this is comparable to modern day machine gunners vs. snipers. Snipers need talent AND training. Machine gunners, just the training, and much less of it. Of course I do agree with you 1000% on the issue of "history made interesting". This is one of the most thought provoking collaborations I have ever seen on RUclips. Besides, it involves FOUR RUclipsrs from three different countries and two different continents. If that isn't epic, than I don't know what is.
Thank you. You are right that a few weeks/months training would get people up to speed, but by that time they are soldiers. Many of the comments seem to indicate handing it to a guy training him for an afternoon and letting him go and I don't think that is where you would get the best out of this device. What also occurred to me looking at comments is that of course you do not have to shoot an entire mag in one go, you can burst shoot 3 for example and whilst you are waiting for the situation to evolve you can load up the shots you have taken, so a reload speed does not always have to be factored in as it is will not always be relevant. Its been great- thanks
Wouldn't this be more like a shotgun? Something to storm into a building with. Short range, bursts of shots, intervals which allow for rest and reloading. I can see such a situation give an advantage to the Instant Legolas when you break into rooms. In those moments, you don't need range or power. Just masses of arrows. And the narrowness of these passages wouldn't allow for many archers to be standing next to each other. You might have two archers break through and be facing 5 men. Those two archers would have the capacity to quickly return fire against those five men. SWAT situations basically.
I see Joerg more as the machine gunner from TF2 more than the sniper lol No wonder Joerg made the SIL God I loathed history classes back in school, boring "facts" repetition
I can see this being good for defending merchant caravans. A small group of guards could quickly unload a couple dozen arrows at ambushing brigands who likely wouldn't be heavily armored in the first place.
On some other videos you made I've heard you say that you're not a scientist. I know of course what you're meant to say there, but as a scientist myself (yet no historian), I just wanted to say that this discussion here and the whole medieval mythbusting series is about as scientific as it gets. You present your well-researched evidence, you form hypothesis about what we don't know yet, you test them out in experiments and then discuss your results with the community. Academic or not, I would call you a scientist. You are advertising scientific thinking and respectful discourse, something the world desperately needs in these weird times.
Thank you Robin, that is very kind and I suppose what I am saying is that in science you absolutely, exhaustively, try to get everything right. I do work a scientific way but I am much more general, so just as a casual guy who mends a car is not a mechanic, I do not see myself as a scientist. Besides, I am too busy to pursue the standards of proof required.
Agree. His sample sizes might be small, but they're still well thought out experiments, and I've seen worse sample sizes with more flawed methodologies passed off as good science before
Sure, an academic researcher would probably still pursue things a little different, but the scientific method and it's way of thinking are shared by both hobbyists and professionals. What I meant is that science is often pictured as this super complicated, extremely meticulous thing with mathematical equations all over the place and papers spread across the floor. Sometimes that's true, but what often gets lost in the narrative is the curiosity that lies at its heart, and the whole fun of it. Videos like yours bring that along, and that's why I said they are advertising science in a way. It gets people to think about a topic and to ask questions. And it entertains PhD students that are procrastinating their work in the middle of the day, to randomly mention something that absolutely never happend to me. Ehem.
The Historical method and the Scientific method are very closely aligned. Both form hypothesis, conduct research, and present their findings. The difference is that Historians look into the past, while Scientists look into the future
@@tods_workshop I recommend this whole series as a perfect example of the old saw about the difference between theory and practice - in _theory_ things work, but in _practice_ they don't. _THIS_ is *ENGINEERING* in capital letters. Speaking as an engineer who launches new products, the inventors usually lack practicality. All the points you raise - how to supply the Instant Legolas, how to move with it, defence against long-range weapons, possible specialized uses, training needed, applying and removing protection, what a bowman might expect - are necessary to progress from idea to table-top demonstrator to first prototype to second prototype to something that is useful and can be used, manufactured at scale, repaired, and maintained. And often it's better to experiment with a knowledgeable eye than overdo the theory. I do suspect, though, that your point about "what would a peasant do if it jammed" has been answered. When you first showed us your mediaevalized version, IIRC you took it apart into something like seven pieces in about ten seconds! If you had a way of restraining the bowstring in case of a jam, repairs and maintenance could be quite easy. In normal undamaged and maintained use I would be surprised if it jammed at all - you've put bone runners/guides in, you've chosen specific materials elsewhere. You only have to make this thing work for four hours or so (which might only be one thousand arrows), then you'll either be dead or you'll have time to conduct maintenance. What I would like to see is the range of environments where it can be used - when it's raining, when it is 30° in the shade or ten degrees of frost, and so on. Strategically, this would have added to the medieval arms race - tactics to kill the Legolases would have been developed, the Genoese/Flemish mercenaries would have stolen the design and so forth.
A situation that comes to mind for this, coming from a firearm fan: The Siege of Plevna. A situation where the besieging army was wielding single-shot rifles, while the besieged army was wielding single-shot rifles... And had a small line of troops with lever-action, pistol-caliber repeaters. At Plevna, the defenders would fire the single-shots as normal, until the enemy closed within a certain range of their firing line. THEN the repeaters would open fire, unload as fast as they could to drive off the threat. That's the sort of application I can see for this myself.
I suggested a couple guys on the walls with these during a siege. You start climbing the ladders, and suddenly a few guys with these (and extra's with squires reloading them) start shooting arrows down at that speed. With only 10 archers, you are looking at 250 arrows a minute into the people at the base of the wall. Add in all the other things they used, and it would be demoralizing.
Yes, a tactical shock weapon to break an attack or exploit a weakness, focusing combat power to punch a hole in a weakened formation for further exploitation through penetration or rout. Because of logistical issues, perhaps better for defence including a prelude to a counter attack. Unlikely to be useful for attack per se. Although maybe useful in covering a withdrawal?
"Berthold had thought this job was easy. Guarding a knight's castle would've been easy if it had been anyone but him. He demanded they train with this ridiculous weapon for months until they were allowed into action. Then the war came, as it always did. Berthold had thought that they were in for a siege, but he was wrong again. After a week, they came with ladders against the wall. Then his knight commanded his guards into action. They brandished those strange weapons, bows or crossbows, he wasn't sure. As they took aim, Berthold wasn't sure if they'd been any good. He was never so happy to be wrong. They cleared the ladders in seconds, and once they were clear, few men were brave enough to climb them, and they could be dealt with by regular archers. When they came with a ram, Berthold and his fellows went to the murder holes above the gate and shot down onto them, and soon the ram was abandoned. Long after the castle was safe and the war was over, Berthold was glad to have been in the knight's service and to have carried that weapon. Then the Pope banned it for taking Christian lives too efficiently." Just something I whipped up as an example.
@@aPlanetaryCitizen It's definitely going to be written in to my worldbuild as a weapon to combat the, what is in essence, Welsh longbowmen that used guerrilla tactics.
i can see there being two or three ranks , the first two ranks normal longbows , the third rank are armed with the instant legolas , as the enemy cavalry come into range they charge the archers , first rank fire , and retreat second rank fire and retreat and then the instant legolas archers , let loose a barrage from hell as the cavalry receive an eight second blast of arrows without raising a sweat. Their mates come forward again and pot shot anyone still standing . not sure i would like to be receiving that many arrows . Archers convert to church of England and bugger the popes ban.
"Don't throw insults. Throw information." I love it! Thank you Todd for your insights. I'm one of the people who originally called your name out to receive one of these, because I felt a little experimental archaeology was needed here. Keep doing what you do.
This would be a great ambush weapon. Set up a trained unit in hiding, when the enemy gets into position just let loose a sudden rapid fire volley. As soon as the arrows run out you run for it while the enemy is in a panic.
This would only work if there were no cover. If there's cover, folks just hide after the first arrow. That was how crossbowers skirmished against archers. They didn't just stand there, they took cover while spanning their bows.
@@benjaminabbott4705 Sneak attack on an encampment? Three or four of these, each with a hundred arrows, one with arrows on fire. I'd also like to use noise-making arrows for the scare effect.
Or alternatively, when the bows run out, toss them and draw sidearms, and capitalize on the confusion. Or even have a small group of men at arms hiding with you to charge when the bows run dry.
Special forces talk about "speed, surprise, and violence of action" and that's exactly what the Instant Legolas would have provided. I think we would have seen a lot of medieval commandos.
I was thinking exactly the same, perhaps for ambushes where the first 10s is the most important or to be used by sort of in a Dragoon style where you can ride up to any exposed troops/support people/whatever, do some damage really quickly then get away to reload when you're not actually fighting.
I was thinking a long similar lines. There is something to be said for cover and move tactics used today. I'm not sure how well they would be used in medieval combat but a fire rate of fire does make it more possible to utilize. There's a lot of good comments about using it in ambush situations or siege situations. Speed, surprise, aggressive action, and cover for soldier maneuverability would make this weapon shine. I think Tod makes a good point. How much of that happens on an open battle field? Is this weapon better used in guerrilla warfare?
I can totally see that happening. Commandos were created to serve a very specific purpose in warfare. They operate behind enemy lines in close quarters and high risk situations. SIL is perfect for that. Behind enemy lines you wouldn't encounter many armored opponents, in close quarters you don't need the range so you can carry a lighter bow, and the rate of fire SIL provides would be perfect in high risk situations, be it to allow the commandos to retreat after a hit-and-run, or maybe to cause panic and chaos breaking the supply lines, or to maximize chances of an assassination attempt being successful. This would no doubt be the weapon of choice for medieval commandos.
just what I was thinking ... discussion and argument without doxing, being cancelled or called ist/phobe .... almost like we're civilized, rational people! ;o)
This would potentially be such a force multiplier to fort defense that I can easily imagine plenty of small defensive structures being erected to accommodate wielders. Potentially great for coastal defense too. As grim as it sounds, it could also be used against peasant rebellions. Think about it - you're outnumbered, but they're unarmoured and probably don't have the weapons to reach you. Low-power variants could also be great during ship boardings.
Fair warning first, i don't claim to have any specific knowledge about the medieval times, my points will be based on my "common sense". This devise seems bulky, heavy, expensive, difficult to store or transport in it's operational form a bit less so if taken apart. If someone has to carry that devise, he i don't se him carry much else. So in the field it would probably be better to just carry a longbow/crossbow and more arrows/bolts. I don't see people marching through fields holding these. (And i am quite sure it would take too long to assemble them when the enemy is running at you with swords drawn) Another part is reloading. You would need a bit of a break and space to reload it (to fiddle the arrows in the slot and not jam it.) Overall you would deliver a couple of arrows faster, but on average there wouldn't be too much of a difference. (i think in the other video they compared the Instant Legolas 120 pound to the 160 pound longbow, in which case the 5 arrows without reloading had about double the shooting speed, but considering the reload that that wouldn't really be faster. Apart from Joe, the archer, seeming to be more tired then shooting his heavier bow) Because of the additional weight of the devise (which looks to be more than doubling that of the longbow) and the bow draw offset further back (offset caused by the distance between draw string and handle) while shooting, the bowman should tire a lot faster (apart from additional friction, etc.) So hypothetical military use overall wouldn't seem too likely to me.
@@luckydead5875 I feel like the design principles of the I.L. could be scaled up into a devastating crew serve/siege weapon dual mounted on a fortification, ship or cart. Bigger more durable parts, a one two punch on target and relatively quick reload would have many applications, could be both a rich boy’s toy and effective weapon at the same time; just seems more likely to exist as artillery than as mass mobilized infantry weapon.
@@matts9116 My thoughts exactly! The weapon will be much more effective mounted in a cart or tripod(or something) with a crew of 2-3 people operating it and a shield protecting them for any enemy snipers. Heck! Maybe we'll see the first clip in an arrow before the bullet. And maybe, if the IL was invented in the past it might even accelerated the invention of repeating rifles. Optimistic, but you'll never know.a
i agree, fort defense and the rest, but maybe useful for guards of nobility on long distance travels... rapid dispatching of multiple opponents before they get within range to strike you. it could even be like a designated marksmen of modern day. you have a crew of average archers and other warriors, then you have the one specialist whose job is to nail the strays and provide cover fire during maneuvering.
I imagine this would have been insanely effective in castle defense. In some documentaries I watched, I heard that most castles would be guarded by maybe a dozen people. Imagine you are trying to scale the walls and then theres a dude leaning over and raining 5 arrows down on you in less than 15 seconds. And while he reloads, a second lad unloads his magazine. I think in most medieval Europe this could have been a fantastic, even if expensive, device. In sieges like that, there are plenty situations where effective range becomes almost irrelevant = lower power is fine, so some drawbacks are negated. You could also easily increase the arrows stored in the guard towers to be quickly brought up to the crenellations.
Absolutely that's where/when i would deploy this sort of weapon!!! ammo re-supply sorted, reloading sorted, directed high volume of fire at mid-distance, perfect!!!
I could see there being issues getting the bow around the castle, up spiral staircases etc, A traditional bow has a sleek profile and held close to the body, dosnt take up much more space than the person carrying it. The instant Legolas has a great big thing sticking out the back making it much less manoeuvrable in a castle corridor. Yes it can be dismantled but that then means it needs to be rebuilt. Just my thoughts from trying to get round English castles and not smash my camera on things..
@@seb4sti4n666 I would Like to see how quickly someone can get from the courtyard to the battlements and fire a shot in an average English castle compared to a traditional bow.
Like the Burgundian hand-gunners or the Swiss Pikemen regiments. They are a prime example of specialist units that monetized their unique role and/or equipment on the battlefield, and someone somewhere would have done the same with this hypothetical medieval technology. The real thought experiment: WHICH nation or city/state would equip mercenaries most effectively with SIL?
I'm thinking also about mounted archers or skirmishers. Ride in, unload magazines, ride away to safety, reload. That or ambushes, harassment or guerilla warfare.
mercenary armys came after the feudal armies he'S talking about, but it's a good idea, they were piad well enough to invest in the lastest armor and weapons tech so they might would invest in a specialiced toll like the SIL
The advantages of the SIL is burst fire, and being able to hold the bow while cocked. Someone mentioned mounted guards. I agree that a bow suitable for horseback archery would have to be used (Instant Genghis Khan). But it could be realy efficient. (Also a very good weapon for the brigands laying ambush. Skirmishing cavalery. Perhaps even skirmishers on foot as well. You talk a bit about open field battles. There I can see it being used for flank security, and also as a first line behind a pavis, just waiting for the enemy charge. High rate of fire could realy do a job on the charging formation. Combined with a pavis, the ability of the SIL to be held cocked would be usefull, like it is for crossbows. You can cock it in safety, then expose yourself while aiming, fire, and get back into cover.
That's a couple of great points, skirmish cavalry is an excellent example of where this kind of system would be useful. They ride in, empty the magazine at the enemy, then ride away to reload, rinse, repeat... and the ability to hold it cocked is extremely useful with cover.
To extend your comment on skirmishing cavalery, I imagine this could have increased guerilla tactics since they could whittle away the enemy before the battle starts. Conversely it could be used to protect the baggage train from the enemy since that getting stolen was a major blow to a campaign.
It is theoretically possible to make a SIL with the trigger on the front grip, so it can be held cocked and fired with one hand only (the other hand holds the reins, in the case of a mounted archer/SILer).
Just two small things I'd like to point out: - The ~1 million arrows were brought by Henry V's army for the campaign, not just for a single battle that was Agincourt. I think it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume they could not shoot their whole campaign supply in a single battle, even if they tried to. - That particular campaign was very expensive. Henry V had to essentially pawn the crown of Richard II to get the money for it, among other loans.
I believe most people here underestimate the advatage of superior firepower, in a symetrical field battle if one side has 3 times the firepower it ether leads to 9 times more casulties on the opposing site, or more if the enemy flees before the charge is finished or get supressed and taken prisoner. Try it out in a strategie game. There are of course messures, tactic and strategies against that, but most lead to other severe disadvantiges, like limited moveability (castles) or inability to protect (gurilla warfare).
@@leonfa259 English battle doctrine was not symmetric, it was entirely dependent on being able to establish a static defense with field works protecting the archers and closing of the flanks. The more general European style of war in field battles was a battle of maneuver. Superior firepower was not really a thing back then for most situations. The Swiss regularly just charged and destroyed enemies by outflanking them with militia pikemen with incomplete armor. Even a lot of their frontal charges were irresistable by anything but other pike formations aka missile troops did not make a sufficient dent in them to stop them. Incidently when we see them stopped it is again artillery in prepared field works preventing them to make their charge work... sounds familiar?
The thing about the Instant Legolas is that in function it can nearly perfectly mimic a bow when shot at a slower speed. You don't need to sustain high rates of fire with the device, you just need to be able to do it briefly when the situation calls for it. As a result of this, you can likely get away with the higher poundage, and therefore not suffer losses in range. I don't see why this couldn't have been deployed to a subset of archers, perhaps 10 or 20 percent in any and all situations. Based on your testing each Instant Legolas is the equivalent of 3.5 archers in terms of rate of fire during a burst, and since the other "normal" archers will still be firing, this would result in a 25 or 50 percent increase in arrows loosed during the salvo. As an extreme example a 40% deployment of Instant Legolasses would allow the number of arrows loosed to double during the burst. The only prohibiting factors are cost, additional weight, and the logistics of bolt supply. You've indicated that the cost in time and resources can be overcome, and your concerns for bolt supply can be greatly reduced if we reduce on average the rate of fire to be slightly greater than that of a normal archer (since bursts are infrequent). The only outstanding item is weight, and while the added mass might not be negligible in terms of its effect on the endurance and mobility of the archers I'm not sure that it would be overly prohibitive towards its use.
Considering they would be weaker bows than the bows used by the regular archers, wouldn't it mean that don't have the same range making them unable to properly shoot with the rest of the army? I think they could have seen some use in battle but probably in more creative strategies like some sort of ambush or something.
I feel like if bandits got their hands on one of these, a lot of taxes aren’t going to be getting to the local lord. Bandits are sometimes ex military and battle hardened. 10-20 bandits with these on a backroad would be devastating.
If a bandit could afford a weapon like SIL, they wouldn't NEED to be a bandit in the first place. I have understood that crossbows were expensive, and SIL is as complex or even more complex to make than a crossbow = expensive piece of equipment.
I was thinking about this, ambushes with this thing would be terrifying and I cannot see how one would deal with it effectively. It's unheard of to see archers in relatively "close quarters" but with that many bows going off at once to the surprise of the enemy, the range does not matter
They don't need to fire 25 arrows a minute. You could fire 5, which would still be a highly effective rate. It also allows a much smaller force to fire a lot of arrows like a larger force. Imagine a rapid reaction force to plug breaches in defenses.
That's exactly what Tod is saying. If you'd use them on an open field battle it'd be all about arrows per minute but that's not feasible with logistics and the reduction in power, instead you use them in specialized situations like the one you said.
Toth people did say that when bolt action rifles were introduced and again with semi autos that the quartermaster wouldn’t be able to keep up with the logistics of supplying so many bullets
@@osiris201 I don't think 'arrows per minute' is really the correct metric, particularly for a weapon like this with such fluctuating rates of fire. Rather, I would argue that the appropriate metric is 'arrows per target _opportunity.'_ If you see someone stumble and drop their shield for a moment, how many arrows can you send at them in the time it takes them to recover? With a regular longbow, you _might, maybe_ get what? Two? With this, two or three would be _likely,_ and maybe more. And with that, would you even particularly care if your total arrows per minute were held unchanged by logistical limitations? You don't need to fire more arrows. You just need to fire more arrows _when they matter._
A situation where the instant Legolas would fit perfectly, is when war wagons were used, as they provided protection and arrow suplies. Also in skimmishes, as a sort of "special operations", where some few archers would need greater firepower for short periods of time.
Indeed. War Wagons were used all across Eurasia and Wagon forts even found its way to the Americas. The ancient Han Dynasty were known to have used armored war wagons protected by crossbowmen, archers, and halberdiers to fight off the horse archers and lancer cavalry charges of the armies of the Xiongnu Confederation. Czech general Jan Zizka used it to fight off heavily armored knights. The book "Great Walls and Linear Barriers" By Peter Spring draws parallels between the War Wagons of Jan Zizka and those of the Han Dynasty.
@@robertstuckey6407 If you want to read more about Wagon Forts and War Wagons, the book "Great Walls and Linear Barriers" By Peter Spring talks about War Wagons of Czech general Jan Zizka and those of the Han Dynasty. Here are some quotes about the ancient Han Dynasty version from it and from other books: 1) "At the Battle of Mobei in 119 BC the Han general, Wei Qing, used rings of heavily armed chariots, or wu gang, first to break Xiongnu charges, and then to launch a successful counter-attack These vehicles protected infantry and crossbowmen from Xiongnu arrows and gave them the security to be able to shoot back accurately. Han cavalry dealt with any Xiongnu who broke through." -Great Walls and Linear Barriers By Peter Spring 2) One of the best recorded expeditions involved an infantry force consisting of 5,000 veteran soldiers led by an experienced Han general named Li Ling. In 101 BC Li Ling led his regiment north into the Mongolian steppe in an attempt to provoke an engagement with the Xiongnu...they wore jacket like coats of lamellar armour fashioned from rawhide leather and steel platelets and carried bows for trajectory missile fire and crossbows for long range marksmanship. They traveled with a defensive line of reinforced supply wagons carrying a store of half a million steel tipped arrows and crossbow bolts. Li Ling marched his regiment several hundred miles into Xiongnu territory and then waited for the enemy to attack. On the chosen battlefield, the Chinese supply wagons were drawn up into a defensive ring with the soldiers arranged in ranks around this protective position. The front line troops were equipped with long steel pikes to deter oncoming cavalry charges, while the inner ranks were placed in dense order and stood ready to fire bows and crossbows at any approaching target..." -The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: The Ancient World Economy & the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia & Han China by Raoul McLaughlin 3) "Han infantry employed in complementary formations, combining swords, crossbows, and halberds, all protected by armor, could be irresistible to the Xiongnu. One Han campaign against the Xiongnu in 93 BCE succeeded when the Han infantry preserved their formation and delivered concentrated disciplined crossbow fire in unified volleys...Han general Li Ling deliberately set out into Xiongnu territory with only five thousand infantrymen, without cavalry support. There were political and personal reasons for his rashness...Lu soon found himself surrounded by some thirty thousand Xiongnu horsemen. He retreated to a strong position, and, in the words of a near contemporary chronicle, he 'ordered his men to use the baggage trains as a circular laagaer rampart. He personally led his elite fighters holding halberds and shields to take up battle formation outside the encirclement, while the archers and crossbowmen with their bows fully drawn took up the rear making preparations for the Xiongnu assaults.' The Xiongnu charged and were repulsed by the halberdiers, who then withdrew into the laager. When the Xiongnu rallied to pursue the apparently fleeing halberdiers, the Han archers behind the wagons devastated them." -Waging War: Conflict, Culture, and Innovation in World History By Wayne E. Lee
Not much room for a longbow, and too restrictive for opportunity shooting, which is where it excels. and slitting a throat is where the money is, or the lord gets it all....
I have a feeling the Mongols would have love the "instant Legolas". I can imagine them charging in, unleashing devastating hail of arrows then galloping away to reload. Kind of like the medieval Dragoon
Probably not, honestly. Using a heavy bow on horseback is difficult enough already; I don't see them using one that is more difficult to draw, as it would force them to lower their draw weights. Plus, they can't just drop it into their bow quiver if necessary the way they could with their actual bows, and it would be bulky and cumbersome to try to deal with that on horseback.
I doubt it too. It’s a bit big and cumbersome and rigid to maneuver on horseback, and those guys train archery from a really age. They’d be better at shooting regular recurves anyways. After they took some of the Chinese dynasties (xi xia, jin), they not only had access to repeating crossbows, which were smaller and arguably faster, but early gunpowder weapons too. They still didn’t really adopt either. Not to any considerable extent at least.
@@TheTommy9898 I believe the Mongols actually did employ some manner of gunpowder weapons, which was the reason why the recipe for gunpowder spread to Europe to begin with. Of course, the Europeans refined them a lot better than the Chinese or Mongols ever did, but still.
@@gameragodzilla They did for sure, but what i mean is they didnt completely adopt it in any widespread manner during the European campaigns. They still used it in Asia through their Chinese forces though.
@@TheTommy9898 Eh, that's probably more due to how unsophisticated gunpowder weapons were at the time. The Europeans definitely refined that technology but it definitely was used enough such that the Europeans were able to come across the recipe. Funny thing, gunpowder was kind of a fluke historically. Bows and arrows, spears, swords, etc. were all independently developed by practically every single culture, but gunpowder only was invented once and then spread through the world. Obviously there were tweaks, refinements and advancements in the recipe, but it's curious to wonder how the world of warfare would be different without it. Maybe the Instant Legolas would've been considered the "assault rifle" of that other world.
I have watched joerg, shad, and you for awhile before this collaboration and I am really enjoying watching your different skill sets play off of each other Keep up the good work, I love your stuff
I had always envisioned this as a very effective anti-seige weapon. Ita shorter range, rapid fire would seem to be well suited to defending from enemies attacking the walls in large numbers or charging a breach. It would be very demoralising to have a hail of arrows coming at you from a small number of defenders, potentially leaving other defenders to 'snipe' with longbows or crossbows.
I could imagine it sucks a whole lot more, to have arrow fire you can't look up from. I know the volley fire at a steep angle is mostly a movie thing, but I imagine you would "kinda" know when to take cover from the archers. The SIL would remove that aspect, and you'd have to weather out a rain of arrows rather than brave a shock attack.
@@slimlacy2 Are you speaking to the benefit of crenellations and machicolations against the attackers with potential at least wooden overhead cover within the defenses?
Nice point. How about having a couple of these either side of an entryway - drawbridge, portcullis,... with a stock of arrows to hand. Could also be used on a rescue sortie, which would require shooting on the way out and on the way back, say about ten minutes.
I would still call it a game changer because the things that it excels at would have been done more (e.g. guerillia tactics) and thereby change the nature of warfare.
@@tods_workshop you're right, it is obvious that people would adapt to the existence of this new weapon and arguing over the definition of what does and doesn't qualify as a "game changer" is pointless. It's impossible to know exactly how tactics would develop around this new weapon, but of course speculating is all the fun here. One historical comparison would be the Chinese Chu Ko Nu, but I think the Instant Legolas could be made more powerful (mostly because of the longer power stroke) while also being much more accurate.
@@tods_workshop I posted in a previous video before I saw this one that I saw this as more of a defensive wall weapon, or interior weapon. Combined with a second archer so one does 25 arrows, the next does 25 and they alternate between 2 or 3 archers. One archer with one of these can easily shoot 5 in the time it takes them to fire one and knock the second. So if you had 5 archers in rotation, it would be slightly more effective than those 5 shooting all the time with regular bows. Imagine these on a wall with kids loading magazines or other bows with the device and handing them off. The kids would be safe for the most part unless there are high arching arrows - and there probably were... on the battlefield, I wrote, this wouldn't work well because if you get shot or killed, an enemy could pick up a likely loaded device and easily figure it out and shoot at friendlies. But for defense, on a walled city, these would've been a massive game changer. As for repelling people inside, it could've done a lot of damage but in that close range people could be knocked and cocked before rounding a corner and get a shot off - but with the front grip the people could have 10 of these already to go for the person coming around the corner. The downside is when that person gets shot they release the arrow and it will hit something - if it is a person or not, who knows.
@@OpiatesAndTits Medieval woods were usually pretty tame actually, you wouldn't see a ton of underbrush because it interfered with hunting... So it typically was removed in hunting grounds, at least to some extent. The best use case for it is when people are not wearing armor, it definitely excels at disrupting supply and hitting soft targets harder than anything else could, conceptually. Siege defence also would highly value something like this.
I think about it more like a musket. Imagine it like this - there's a line of soldiers with SIL shooting 5 arrows and going back for reload, then the next line comes forward shooting 5 arrows and going back for reload and so on, and so on... And while the SIL is getting reloaded a person gets its rest.
Yes, good call. That tactic is called a "rolling blockade," and you can use it stepping your lines forward, backward, or staying in place. It was very effective for the British in the colonial era with their muskets.
It seems a perfect weapon for horseback archers, although not in a longbow form. The added mobility gets them in range where they can make use of their high rate of fire, and it also solves the logistics. The unit can go out and expend their arrows, then ride back to a supply point and pick up a new bundle of arrows like a jogger grabbing a water bottle.
I think I've got an idea of Tod vs Joerg's opinions: - Tod is thinking in the mind set of *"it's first introduction in the medieval world"* - Joerg is thinking after few years of developments and improvement by many military campaigns
@@jameschalkwig787 yes basically, 2 advantages: 1- Manpower 2- Proficiency: instead of training for decades to be a gud archer => train for decades to be a god "other" + Archer * One last thing: about not usable in open combat cuz range: no. sure, you get tired,....how about resting /or/ continuous group fire Group 1 shouts Group 2 rest and reloads All of them: swordsmen spear-men cavalry .....women.....peasants.....noble then all switch to hand to hand (or at least the front lines) rest fires when opportunity rises
@@jameschalkwig787 But that won't happen because of stress. People go to shit even when their life isn't at risk: examples being musicians forgetting how songs go during live shows, and people forgetting how to use their laptops during presentations (as a musician and someone who spent years in corporate IT I've seen too many of both to count!). The issue with jamming - aka adding *problem solving* to a stressful situation - is a perfect example of this. For it to be a weapon as you describe the commoner would have to be familiar with it from everyday use (so cheaply available), or to have had some intensive training that duplicates these problems under stress (which your peasant won't get). In this case the device would be ubiquetous, and very quickly adopted by all sides after the first couple of battles plus tactics put in place to mitigate. EDIT: Tod's comment about the device being twice as time-consuming - therefore expensive - to build as a crossbow is very much relevant.
I think it's more likely that Tod has shot bows at the maximum draw weight he's able to draw quite often, and Jörg hasn't. Speed of fire is nice, but sustained fire is what matters after the first rush, and there are other considerations as well, chief among these the range of fire. Skirmishers perhaps, but even there the loss of range would hurt. Perhaps. Light cavalry ... if you can shoot from horseback, and only need 5 shots, sure. But horse archers are rare and reloading would be tricky I imagine. In addition, most famous horse archers come from herder societies, not sure if they would be able to produce them in the first place. It also wouldn't be a skill that translates from hunting but is a dedicated anti-human invention. A further entrance barrier, though definitely not a deal-breaker. All in all, I'm not too sure about that light cav either. I agree with Tod that open field battles wouldn't be the prefered place for this gadget. Losing range and sustainability for burst damage isn't what a field battle is about. I completely disagree with Tod in regards to logistics, if your arrow-per-kill doesn't go down - and I don't see why it should - all you do is win faster, not need more arrows. Probably need less arrows due to morale breaking earlier. Even if you do need more, that would be solved, no question about it. Where I could definitely see the Instant Legolas is in sieges, suppressing defenders for a few short minutes from behind a pavise (or breaking charges from atop the wall), during anti-riot duty or for guards of all kinds. Bodyguard, caravan guard, gate guard. Wherever you can think of people having to fend off a quick, kinda-unexpected rush (or simply intimidate the opposition), these things seem like a good solution. Of course on the other side as well, it's ideal for ambushes. Naval warfare wasn't on my mental list, but now that Tod mentioned it I can definitely see it as a useful tool at sea as well.
@@jameschalkwig787 Hell no, you won't. The draw assist only helps at the beginning of the draw (the easy part), so it does not increase the maximum draw weight you can use. Using a 160# bow (and Joe can shoot up to over 200#) requires years of regular practice, IL or no. A fit novice can manage maybe 70# with or without the draw assist, on a good day...i.e. _not_ after weeks of marching, disease, and poor diet on a campaign. Also, as a matter of trivia, one of the major advantages of the Golden Horde was their massive tactical and strategic mobility, as well as their excellent organization and discipline. Your peasants will have none of these.
@@alexanderflack566 It is possible to make a pretensed assistance mechanism so that there is still some assistance at the end of the draw where it is needed the most.
Few counterpoints: Logistics - it would be different, but in a good way. You would need fewer archers (less consumables) for the same firepower. Some of those free hands would be used for logistics, others would not be needed at all. Same thing would affect the price of the weaponS - you need fewer of them and you need fewer people to feed and operate them. I would guess, that this would more than compensate higher cost of the weapon. In other words - do not try to keep the mancount constant. Keep strength of the army constant (lets say rate of fire in this case) and then compare costs. Or keep costs constant and compare strenght.
I can also see armies trying out equipping only the best of their archers with this device and keeping them mixed with regular troops. Kinda like giving the best rifle to the marksman in a unit.
@@Hirosjimma Yea but marksman will not complicate your logistic since they carry the same loadout. This one require his own ammo carrier more like LMG squad instead marksman.
you still need the same amount of archers, they shoot faster but it's also more tiring so they can't sustain the same volume of arrows as conventional archers over a extended time
@@yulusleonard985 mmh but less cost can be better to so what if you trakte more il artchers that you need to compansate and youse the rest fr logistics
Imagine blitzkrieg tactics in the medieval times... An army is marching to a battlefield a few days away. The enemy scouted and saw the route they were taken. That battlefield is way down the road, they don't need to put all their armour on yet. Suddenly 30 archers pop up on either side and unload 5-6 shots in a mere couple of seconds, and then they all just fall back and take off. No casualties. No danger. They head for their horses and GTFO. And if the enemy is stupid, maybe they'll fall for it again. Or cavalry using a warbow with one of these attached. Just have to pump off their shots as they run by the front of the enemy lines. Can't guarantee it would work or work 100% of the time, but it could have been really effective against units wearing weaker armour, perhaps? I'm no expert on this stuff, these are just the ideas I could see potentially working
I think they would have been extremely useful in while defending a castle because an archer would be able to pop up and give a short burst of arrows and pop down, or for mounted archers who had less range anyway
There's no need to be stuck on a longbow, it's not like England was the only country in the world in medieval ages. Put it on for example horse archers bows, expand a magazine a bit, and you have a modern day drive by. A hundred horse archers releasing a thousand arrows in ~15 seconds and then riding away calmly reloading would definitely be a thing.
Tod makes an excellent point: there are so many 'specialty' weapons before and during the gunpowder age, that seem like an incredible invention but in reality had very little impact, except to those specific few circumstances in which they were deployed. This does seem like one of them. Bravo for speaking your mind and following historic logic and evidence.
This invention makes already an impact today and could start a renaissance of bows as a weapon. Let's face it: The main reason why fire guns are so powerful is the cadence and Europe conquered America within no time. Small pocks helped as well, but bows had no chance against firearms. With similar shot cadence between natives and conquers the present would probably look different.
Disclaimer: I have little knowledge about medieval warfare/combat and I'm sure at least 80% of what I "know" is from movies and TV-series... But, with that said: My instinctive thought when I first saw this device wasn't large scale warfare. Mostly I wasn't so sure a short burst of a lot of arrows were worse than a long, ongoing "bombardment". Because, as you say, amount of arrows you can have and how tired you will get by shooting... But what struck me was smaller units. Even a small ambushing unit of five people where, say, two had these devices and three lay in hiding closer to the target. Send of ten arrows quickly (giving the target a small time to react) and then the rest attack the survivors (while the archers swap weapons and join in). Basically: a situation where the combat will be short and intense and an initial volley of arrows gives an advantage (or is enough of a deterrent for attackers to stay away, of course).
@@jameschalkwig787 There are two major problems with your plan. 1. You still have to pay the peasants to be archers, so your treasury is still a limiting factor (IIRC part of why there were so many archers in the English army boils down to they were cheaper to employ than more heavily armed troops). 2. Medieval populations were tied to the land. Not just politically and legally, but practically. 99% of the population were farmers because they had to be to feed themselves. Take too many of those peasants into the field (and away from their farms) and you will have mass starvation.
I can imagine it as a scaled up, crank operated, crew served defensive weapon- the medieval equivalent of a heavy machine gun. You could have two men working a crank, two loading, maybe even two steering and aiming. Imagine a large number of such weapons mounted around a castle, each capable of firing 20-30 arrows per minute, continually loaded.
One of the things that keeps coming to me when I see the draw assist versions is that one of the more challenging aspects of the use of recurve bows is that the draw effort is front loaded -- it's much harder to draw the first few inches than the last several. If a device like this were mounted on a recurved bow with draw assist, and given to horse archers, I imagine their efficacy as light skirmishers would be dramatically improved -- and they could be trained to competence far more quickly. Small squads of horse mounted archers riding in and out of enemy range could play merry havoc on assembled formations, break charges and such. But that's not where such squads would shine the most. Todd in this video mentions logistic concerns, and as anyone who has ever thought more than passingly can tell you, "an army fights on it's stomachs". The logistics chain is a critical component for any army -- and that's where supposed Legolas Horse Skirmishers would truly shine: raiding the enemy's supply caravans. Short, brief confrontations while ducking in and out of range or concealment, with plenty of time to rest one's arms between engagements. A squad of twenty horsemen would have the ambushing/skirmishing power of a hundred -- if not slightly more as they'd be able to use higher poundage recurved bows thanks to the draw assist, meaning their effective range from horseback would be that much greater. Only an incredibly rich military would use these for "common/standing infantry", I feel -- ones that would be able to afford logistics aids like stripper clips for their Legolas bolts, that might make carrying more bolts per trip easier. I'd also imagine that they might not fire consistently; the infantry role of the Legolas would involve more volley fire than continuous -- one of the commonly noted benefits of this device is the ability to *hold* a drawn arrow for prolonged periods without strain. So while it *could* counter charges with rapid shots, I imagine that would mostly be a deterrent capability for common foot archer units, rather than a relied upon feature. Instead, the ability to loose well aimed and timed volleys might be focused on in medieval officer doctrine. This might gain the Legolas foot the same reputation the crossbow had: as a mercenary's weapon. High priced mercenary units would certainly make much more use of such a weapon.
Is the assisted draw mechanism dead in the water? In your previous video on the topic you had mentioned that there were some interesting solutions presented in the comments and that one in particular was a forerunner.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. If one of the problems of high-poundage bows with a SIL is getting the archer tired quicker, wouldn't the assisted draw solve some of that problem?
@@tods_workshop For stationary weaponry, seems a mechanism that allows two or three bows for assist could create a fast reloading war bow or crossbow. No way it'd be deployed on the open field, but from a fixed position it could be devastating. My guess would be three metal bows for the layered, shorter draw reverse assist with larger wooden bow for the release.
@@tods_workshop Hi Tod, fine work as always! Did you mean yes the assisted draw mechanism is not feasible or that it would solve some of the problem? I wasn't sure which way to read your comment.
Gotta say that this whole discussion made me think of the Battle of Plevna, between the Russians and he Ottomans, and where the Ottoman surprised the world by holding a much larger force at bay thanks to entrenched troops equipped with repeating rifles. The repeating rifles at that time were of lower power than the standard military rifles, ammunition supply was seen as a major concern against the adoption of such a weapon before the battle, but nonetheless, the Ottoman resistance showed the world the merits of a high volume of fire. Anyway, the context was very different compared to medieval times, so not sure how it can truly compare...
I think it gets right at Tod's point about the IL being a specialist weapon, not general issue. Maybe 1 in 10 Turkish soldiers at Plevna had a lever action (one company per battalion or so). Everyone else had a standard single shot. That one company of lever actions was on standby for most of the battle, then popped up once the Russian troops got close enough to hit. Same use case for an IL at a siege. Most troops have a standard longbow (or crossbow, whichever). A few have IL. When the besiegers get close enough for the IL to reach is when the regular bowmen step down and the IL step up.
I've got to say 4 different Tubers from 4 different locations with 4 different opinions and not slagging each other off for each opinion etc makes a refreshing change, Dare i say it? its nice to see an Adult conversation on a subject. i think the Instant Legolas would make a good City watch/Policing applications, as its mere appearance and knowledge that it can shoot quickly would be more of a deterrent than say a single shot crossbow. Gangs/Thieves would certainly think twice knowing that their chance of being shot has been increased 5 fold. Just a thought.
I think this thing would have one very specific but valuable role. Being used by a small number of specially trained archers in a defensive position on low-powered bows to provide insane amounts of saturation fire. -defensive means they're reasonably safe from counter fire -defensive means they can just be standing next to containers full of bolts -defensive means that they can just hand empty bows to some boy who does the reloading and hands back another full one -archers have to be specially trained for all the reasons you listed -low-powered bows in the 80-90 lbs range so archers can keep up their fire for long periods of time -saturation fire means they can use low-quality bolts which are quick and cheap to make, possibly just use ones with fire-hardened tips -BONUS: using bolts means archers on the other side can't just pick them up and use them to shoot back All this means they wouldn't do much against armored targets, though they may get lucky on those who aren't fully covered But they would be amazing as instant morale-breakers for poorly equipped troops If you get hit by one of those poor bolts without armor you'll probably be mildly incapacitated, best case is that it'll hurt like hell. If you get hit by 2 bolts within seconds and can still move, you're leaving posthaste. If 2 or 3 bowmen with these things focus on a single target for a couple seconds it'd be more than enough to score a few hits. If you have 20 bowmen with these things they can break up entire formations.
I have been following these SIL videos since the beginning, and I love all of them. Thanks for your input and all the cool work you have done Tod! You have a new subscriber!
I agree with your evaluation. On the point of who uses it, it makes logistical and tactical sense: give your best, most complex and expensive tools to your best soldiers. Firstly, you're probably not going to have as many of them to equip all your archers. Secondly, trained archers will make better use of it: they can shoot more accurately, shoot heavier bows and shoot for longer. I made a similar point in a previous video: a bad archer with the repeating mechanism is still a bad archer, only that they will be shooting quicker.
Have you seen Tod using the wooden sights in the first video? This is different for the non archers than the archery forms where you can torque the bow.
Wouldn't really need to give this to your BEST soldiers. You can give it to middle of the rank soldiers to bring them up a notch, while your best ones stay as usual. It changes the power dynamic.
@@migueeeelet I think of this as a special forces weapon, because as Tod said it reduces the range and power in order to achieve super high burst rate of fire. The best archers are not just good at shooting longbows faster, but shooting stronger longbows for higher power and range. So the middle of the rank soldiers may just get outranged by top of the line soldiers shooting them from outside the range of the SIL. This weapon is a game changer when sheer rate of fire is key though
- By "giving the Legolas to a peasant" I suspect people meant training up new archers, including youngsters and women, perhaps people are thinking of today's national reserve troops - The Legolas doesn't fire constantly, short decisive bursts are its forte, more M60 rather than static HMG - The Legolas is a powerful version of the Chu Ko Nu repeating crossbow, which was weak, inaccurate and was used to control crowds from a height (or pepper someone to death indoors from short distance). Its presence was enough to disperse a crowd, and the Lego can do the same: ROF is so high, there is a chance to wound even someone in full plate, and its certain to wound the knight's destrier, which has a much less sealed armor if any armor at all. The Lego doesn't need to fire to affect the battlefield. Its presence would be enough.
They did have more powerful versions of the Chu Ko Nu that were up-scaled (could be carried and used by one person, but was getting bulky). There were also some that were really big up-scaled versions that couldn't be carried by one person and had to be mounted on a platform and was basically more like light field artillery. This Instant Legolas could definitely fill a similar niche, as it seems to be more similar to the stronger/bigger versions of the Cho Ko Nus but was smaller and more maneuverable.
The Cho Ko Nu was more-or-less obsoleted by the Trebuchet, so it still would have very limited use: either because the defenses would have been smashed by rocks, or starved out. Maybe you could use a smaller garrison, but a smaller garrison would also run out of arrows too fast for it to matter much.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 The Cho Ko Nu performed different functions from the traction trebuchets and each had its separate niche. The smaller CKNs were very niche personal battlefield weapons used in specific situations (shooting at less armored horses/people or defending a fort) or were personal defense weapons. The larger CKN might be mounted on a platform to be a fast shooting bow or a light field artillery. The traction trebuchet on other hand, was siege equipment/field artillery that threw decent sized projectiles (eg. rocks) that would kill a man even if he was wearing the best 16th century European full plate armor.
@@Intranetusa It's not the traction trebuchets that were the problem: the Song Dynasty had defenses for those, and even had entire killing fields that could use the Cho Ko Nuk, but they did nothing because the Mongols built counterweight trebuchets to smash through the defenses outright. A repeating bow has the same problem: you cannot defend against an enemy you cannot attack. The question then becomes: "would a repeating bow make a siege so expensive that the siege could be broken," and the answer to that is still going to be no in pretty much every case.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 The counterweight trebuchets (CWT) occupied an even more different niche than ChoKoNus (CKN). Comparing the CKN to a CWT is like comparing a pistol to an 120mm artillery. The counterweight trebuchets were larger than the traction trebuchets and could fling projectiles large enough to damage stone and brick fortifications. These CWTs were used to attack the fortifications themselves in addition to sometimes attacking people. The CKNs on the other hand, were primarily used against living targets (people and horses) and were never used against fortifications as that would be useless. The two are for completely different purposes, which is why they were used side by side and didn't replace one another. Look at paintings of the Imijin War for example, when the CKNs were still used alongside bigger forms of artillery (counterweight trebuchets had been used for centuries by that point).
Firstly, love your channel, it’s become one of my go tos. However sir,with my limited knowledge in war fighting, I have to disagree with the instant legolas being a niche weapon (although it should be reserved for professional archers). Reasons being: 1. The magazine does not need to be empty to begin reload, so an archer can keep loading a new arrow with 4 in reserve firing only the first in a sustained fire capacity. 2. Being smaller arrows, IL archers would be able to carry more and each projectile would require less resources. The capability to shoot rapidly in salvos of 5 however is a great force multiplier. The ability to rapid fire would be advantageous in short exposures such as repelling a charge or used in indirect suppression just before friendly melee elements reach a defensive line. Equipped with the IL archers could fire salvos, reload while withdrawing behind a line of melee troops or reload as melee troops leap frog, medieval fire and movement if you will. I think had the IL come into existence in the hands of English professionals, tactics would have changed to employ this weapon to its maximum effect. Although fatiguing if sustained, I believe professionals would have trained to employ it in both a sustained and short rapid rates of fire.
Hi Tod, Thank you for another great video. There are two aspects I would like you to consider, one of which is completely missing from the discussion so far: The French - the discussion to date focuses on the question “would the Instant Legolas be used by an English bowman in battle”. Given the high draw weight of a battle bow, I agree it probably isn’t practical. However, I could easily see the French wishing to deploy the weapon. Throughout history it has been seen that once one side deploys a weapon that results in a step change in warfare, the opposition quickly emulates the weapon in an attempt to counter it. An Instant Legolas would have been perceived as a quick means to do this. Further to this argument, is that in medieval times the French would have had the finances for such an expensive weapon. If used strategically against lightly armoured English bowmen, such a weapon could have easily harassed English lines and formations, similar to the way in which soldiers equipped with rifles would skirmish those equipped with muskets in the Napoleon wars. This then all becomes a question of rate of fire, range and accuracy. Training - there is a great emphasis to date on the training needed to use an Instant Legolas, but training across the board is a significant issue. It should be noted that of the four RUclips presenters discussing this topic, only one of you can use a Battle bow, but all of you are very familiar and practice archery regularly! Training issues were recognised in medieval times as well, with two Kings of England Henry VIII and Charles I passing laws to increase/improve archery practice by the general population. Hence, I don’t feel a lack of training can be used as an argument for saying it would not have been seen on a battlefield. Best regards, James
I still think the device can be use in open field battle and a game changer. 1. It can be used in a formation like Spanish Tercio formation. The archers will skirmish around the main body, moving constantly, and if the enemies attack they will withdraw to the main body. The high rate of fire, spears and shields will cover each other weakness greatly. 2. They can be used as defensive shock troops. Peltas and Slingers were used in the same role for a really long period of time before that. They hid behind infantries and bursted out unload as much as they could then fall back. With SIL high rate of fire, it will work wonders, kindda like grape shots from cannons or shotguns effect. 3. Mounted Archers can also be where this device will shine. You can reach the enemy in the shortest amount of time, unleash highest volume of fire they’ve ever seen, fall back and reload safely. Later on, they can freely move around the battlefield giving suppressing fire where they’re needed and the enemy will have no way to catch them. Edit: 4. Put them on wagons and use them like chariots. They can freely run around the battlefield dishing out high volume of fire to enemies weak points and not afraid to being shot back. You put blades on the wheel and suddenly you have a really deathly machine running around the battlefield wreaking havoc and no real way to stop them. Ammo wont be an issue as it’s a wagon, it can carry a lot. Cavaliers won’t be able to touch it as the blades on the wheels will cut their horse’s legs and shooters on the wagon shoot them to pieces at point blank.
I've gotta say, despite you clearly having the most relevant experience and qualifications to speak on the subject compared to joerg or shad or others, i still think you've reached the entirely wrong conclusions because you've started off with a number of fundamentally flawed premises. most of your points seem to be pointing out that "super high rapid fire isnt a good idea a lot of the time" which is true, for resupply and arm tiredness reasons like you point out. Even joe gibb's main arguments against it seem to have boiled down to it being a lot of work to fire it so rapidly. But both of you don't seem to acknowledge that you can just... not shoot it so fast. the benefit of the IL is that you CAN shoot it rapidly *when you need to* . which isnt an option with a traditional bow. you dont HAVE to shoot it rapidly. a group of archers with ILs could shoot at exactly the same rate as a group of archers without the IL if they wanted to. So resupply would not be a problem and neither would fatigue. But then they would ALSO have the option of loosing a huge hail of arrows in a short amount of time if needed. like for example if they were getting charged by cavalry. So none of your criticisms against the idea of rapid fire are actually valid downsides. rapid fire is an option, not a requirement. This is like saying "fully automatic fire can make you run out of ammo faster than bolt action fire, therefore, bolt action rifles are better than modern assault rifles" and ignoring that modern assault rifles can be fired in semi automatic if you choose to. you also seem to overlook that the IL's rapid fire doesnt necessarily mean "the same number of men loosing far more arrows per minute". It can also mean "the same number of arrows loosed per minute, but requiring far fewer men". if you can have the same amount of firepower from a group of 5 guys with ILs as you would from 20 regular archers. well congrats you now have 15 more men at your disposal, ready to fight or work in your army without ANY extra demand on the arrow supply lines. or alternatively you now have to pay 15 fewer salaries to field the same amount of force and can spend that money on whatever you like. Including hiring more fletchers. this also mitigates any extra expense that the IL would have over a regular bow. sure, making a bow with an IL attached is more expensive than simply making a regular bow. but is making 5 IL-equipped bows and paying 5 salaries more expensive than making 20 regular bows and paying 20 salaries?
While I don't disagree with you, your perspective requires the assumption that the IL archers are thoroughly trained on the IL platform. Nowadays militaries have centralized departments that arm, train, and supply standing armies of professional soldiers. An army organized like this could conceivably adopt the IL platform as a standard weapon system, and deploy it as you've suggested. However, medieval militaries weren't generally organized like this. I think elite units, or professional mercenary groups could certainly standardize on the IL and deploy it as you've suggested. Just like you couldn't give some random guys M4s and send them out into a warzone and expect them to survive--much less be effective--you would need the training and logistics to support every soldier who had one of these.
I Agree. additionaly, Joe didn´t try to use it till absolute exhaustion, surely it´s more exhausting, but the limit is untested/unknown yet. The upper limit of the endurance or the IL-archers may have sufficed to the point of becoming decisive. 2nd, the IL is more expensive cause of double the labor and material, but half of it is a longbow, which you had to build anyway... And the mechanism can always be separated from the longbow, for using the longbow alone, in case the IL were too complicated for some sort of archers.
Shooting fast when you need *is* an option with a conventional bow & was used historically, though perhaps not with English bows. Speed-shooting techniques of holding arrows in the bow hand or drawing hand are even kind of like a magazine bow in that they require a bit of preparation. Whether you're speed shooting with a magazine bow or short composite, however, you need a lighter draw weight. With a conventional bow you at least have the option of drawing your full-power infantry bow short for speed shooting; that's not available with a magazine bow. So that would be the big issue with using magazine bows to speed shoot when needed: they have to be lower draw weight or they couldn't be shot much faster. In the last video, Joe Gibbs shot the 120lb magazine bow only a little faster than he previously shot a 160lb bow. Even assuming whatever caused that could get worked out, fundamentally shooting faster uses more energy in a shorter period of time. There's no evidence whatsoever that 5 archers with magazine bows could provide the same "firepower" as 20 archers with conventional bows. Gibbs shot about an arrow every 4.67 seconds with the 160lb bow & an arrow every 1.6 seconds with the magazine bow, so that's 3x speed at best & roughly 1.75x the power, considering the draw-weight difference. You could equip archers with full-power magazine bows, but they couldn't shoot them all that fast even in bursts. This might be a moderate advantage, but not a huge one. Finally, note that the style of military archery that endured the longest was the Manchu one, which emphasized accuracy with heavy arrows rather than speed shooting.
@@potNuts but you allso forget that over time anybody will konw about it and could handle it atlest once therefore people would konw how it works and the popularity would rise.
I can see this being used as the archery equivalent to a heavy cavalry charge. It would be great in cases of ambush, flanking, softening the enemies line immediately before an infantry charge or even to break up an incoming calvary/infantry charge before it hits your lines.
I respect your ability to talk about different subjects, encourage discourse and the exchange of ideas, and craft a narrative. Well done. One of the recurring themes I hear you mention is that historical peoples were smart. We consistently underestimate their ability to problem solve and innovate. We look at snapshots and make judgments forgetting that people will observe what works and what does not work, then innovate and change to try and optimize weapons/armor/tactics. You see this clearly in the evolution of weapons and armament. As armor becomes more substantial the weapons change and adapt to be more effective. And it works in both directions.
Thanks. I remover as a kid the phrase”arms race” coming onto my vocabulary (teenager in the 80’s) and my surprise later on when I r was aliased history was all about an arms race too
IMO before I watch the video, I think they would be used in a siege defense. I imagine the cost and time to produce one in Medieval times would have them be to costly to field as a field weapon. But I can imagine these used in towers and walls. Where you can have 3 to 5 guys have the force projection of 20. I can imagine have a team of trained Man at arms to shoot the bows with two page boy trainees each loading a spare. I can see lords spending the expense to have some for defense of his keep or castle. You will get more range shooting from a wall so you dont need to use a war long bow, but some hunting bows. (after watching I think we are on the same wavelength.) If you tried to deploy this on a field I can see needing, One trained archer and 2 to 3 support for each guy with one. I think they would not use long bows, but hunting bows at 50lbs and use them as rapid fire. This could only be an elite weapon given to trained man at arms with squires and page boys. I imagine you might use tactic's like the riflemen lines in the field. the man at arms using the bows and the squires and pages would load and fire and they would have long pikes or spears the could grab if they are advanced upon. While the send the youngest boys to the rear with the spent bows so they dont get stolen or broken in close combat. For single use, maybe there is a way to make a magazine system that makes loading faster that could have still been made with the period materials. Imagine an archer with and attendant that was carrying like 30 magazines with 5 or more arrows each. It would require an evolution in tactics and how the military functions to make use of it. So it would no longer really feel like medieval warfare but would start looking like early renaissance gunpowder warfare. Also I can imagine maybe scaling them up like the war hammer elvish repeating bows. Imagine a ballista like war machine with 5 of these in a row that fires them all at once. At least these prove the repeating bow in fantasy games is a real thing.
but in siege shooting volleys fast is less important as time is the only thing you have in abundance. sieges were mostly about starving your enemy out. Also it'S important to note that there were many sieges but most get resolved fast. george carlin had an interessting segment in an episode of 'hardcore history'
I can see a role for them in offensive siege warfare too. An often critical point is when you raise the siege ladders and the first troops climb up. They are very vulnerable to retaliation. If a company of SIL-equipped specialists laid down covering fire as the ladders were raised and the troops climbed up, that could provide a key advantage in storming the walls. Also urban warfare, with its often shorter distances.
I shot my 125lb Warbow without a device almost as fast as Joe Gibbs with the instant legolas. The difference is the SIL's reload is slower because there is a spring blocking the reload chamber effectively slowing down the reload. Belt fed or box magazines are too ahead of its time. I am not that skilled of an archer, I simply used wider gaps and shot on the opposite side like Shadiversity or Lars. Currently doing more experiments with this technique to see if I can improve my fire rate and accuracy, since I am fairly new to this technique with a warbow. Hi Tod I know you already saw my video but I was hoping people could see it, to see the fast rate of fire of a 125lb warbow without an instant legolas. I think this device is great for an untrained archer, but the average archer can shoot similar speed when you factor the reload of the SIL.
The Slavic draw was used historically to shoot fast and it has the same fire rate as the instant legolas if not higher due to simpler reload...trust me I'm Russian
This wouldn’t be a fantastic war weapon due to the physical limitations on drawing the bow. This is however a fantastic guard weapon, for watchtowers battlements or crowd control, it’s a SMG of the bow world
In medieval times men were built like Hobbits ... They would have no problem pulling a heavy war-bow. Many had been shooting arrows since childhood. I see this as an ambush weapon used by a force of under 50 men. They would also have hand fighting weapons like axes or swords.
Moebius it’s not an issue of strength, but endurance. If an army runs for a like to engage the enemy they will be tired (that’s not to say useless but weakened which puts you at a disadvantage), that’s why horses were used, and marches developed. This weapons main advantage is its burst potential, I doubt it would have much impact on shots per hour or per day. So it would be adopted in situations where you require the burst of arrows, or where you need a quick follow up as an option (this would be desired supporting choke points)
Your point about logistics makes sense. When single shot rifle started to evolve into magazine-fed rifles, people in charge were reluctant to equip every soldier with one at first. They feared the soldiers would waste too much ammo too quickly. This is why some early repeating rifles have a magazine cutoff, a switch that turned them into a single shot rifle until shooting faster was absolutely necessary. They later realized the added firepower was worth the cost, but it was long into the age of mass production.
I love the idea that it would be used as a instant moment/short objective tool. For example, you add the instant legolas to your bow for and ambush then remove it and join the other archers to continue your support. Or even if, per say, someone "WAS" to use it in open warfare, it would be something you would supply to fewer archers like the difference between short and long bowmen. It's a very interesting tool and would probably be for fancy honestly. But one that could be used to turn tides when used properly. :3 Great work pointing out the flaws and mixing in idea's like that. Keep up the great work and have a good day!~
It being more expensive than a crossbow is enough to make it infeasible for peasant weapon. Ambushes seems to be a good application - shoot a tonne of arrows quickly at marching army and run away before they figure out what just happened. And the sheer volume of fire might be enough to maybe rout some peasant soldiers, who knows.
Great point, guess couple dozens soldiers in good position could make a hell for marching army. It would look like you get attacked by at least few hundreds.
to me it would have had two uses . 1. Repeling charges or brake thoughts at cassles . The walls hight would nageat some of the longbows adavtages in range and being able to stop a wave before it gained momentum is key to stopping a brake through . 2. Hit and run warfare . As the enmay trupes are marching or camping . 20 or so of your men let loose a full clip and then ride off before the servicers can react . This would have a strong demoralizing affect to the posting army . And was used by the kelts agenst the Romens to wipe out a fullarmy on the march.
it would have been interesting to see a large version of this made for ballista at the time since you could crank back and repeat fire with a set ready to reload similar to how gatling guns worked much later on except you're hurling massive bolts. no idea if it could deal with that kind of stress and strain though even with a big redesign.
It's ridiculous you have to put that disclaimer in the beginning--"Just because we have different opinions does not mean we are enemies." This is one of the many reasons I love your channel and theirs.
I definitely like your viewpoint on what the instant legolas might have been used for. I apologize if this was mentioned already but logistics might have been easier with this due to decreased size of ammunition+lighter payloads=better logistics. Great educational video, it's nice to see a different perspective and I love watching you, Shad, and Jorg show us it's features, lol.
I would say its a peasant-KILLING device. A peasant rebellion with a bunch of unarmored or lightly armored men with pitchforks and spears could be put down by a terrifying volume of fire.
Based on all your arguments my intuition is that it would actually have had more chances of being adopted not as a military weapon but a hunting one. A deer doesn't wear armour, the ability to keep the bow drawn for a bit and have accurate sights is a real bonus for hunting, but the real advantage the SIL has over a hunting crossbow it that in case where you miss your first shot and scare away or just injure the animal, you have this super-fast second, and maybe third shot. No need for a larger magazine though.
There would be hunting versions 100% but I do need to say that warbows are not meant for going through armor. They are made to hurt low grade armor wearers and annoy highly armored opponents.
Todd, I agree with some of the points you made, and disagree with others. I fully agree that equipping a peasant army with these is nigh-on useless. For exactly the reasons that you said. It's complicated by comparison, it's expensive, it'd have to be too light of a draw weight to work effectively. It needs a professional to use properly. That being said I think you're assuming that they would always shoot at maximum, when I don't really see the need to. Yes of course more arrows is always better, but it's also, like you said, much more tiring. So, why not simply shoot at a restrained pace, it would probably still be a faster pace than normal just because you don't have to worry about nocking arrows every time. Then when the need arises, facing down a charge for instance, open it up and shoot for speed. Looking to modern weapons, just because it's got a 30 round mag and can shoot 900 rounds per minute definitely doesn't mean that's what it does all the time. Also, with the concept of the speed loader, you could do what they sometimes did with crossbows and have teams. One shooter and one loader, maybe one to fetch arrows from the wagons. Although, I do agree, the need for arrows would be extreme. (On a related note, we know the English took roughly a million arrows to Agincourt, but do we know if they shot them all? I confess I'm not much of a historian.) I think the Instant Legolas takes a longbow and gives it more versatility in its use. More cost certainly, but I can't think of a situation off the top of my head where you would choose a longbow and the Instant Legolas couldn't also do the job.
A situation where you would choose a longbow over Instant Legolas: archers exchanging missile volleys. Regular longbows would have a much greater range, so they could shoot while keeping out of range of the other side with the weaker bows.
@@lolo2221 Yeah, but as noted by Tod in these last videos, you couldn't use Instant Legolas at the same draw weight as a normal war bow and keep the high firing rate.
@@flamingas Well that's sorta my point, you don't have to keep the high firing rate. Of course it's good to have and would make a serious difference some times, but you can just shoot the bow at the normal relaxed pace without a penalty.
I agree with Tod completely. Short bursts of use for me: Only shoot a magazine empty and then withdraw from engagement - no logistical problems. Tactical: Give these to 25 all the way up to a maximum of 100 well trained soldiers and make a specialised raiding group. Somekind of highly mobile "special ops" group, that would be very well trained and ready for various special tasks on short notice through their training, when for example you need to get a break from enemy charge, are starting your own charge or want to break a stalemate etc. Accomplished through harassing enemy supply lines, ambushing enemy troops, making fierce short fake attacks on the flanks and then withdrawing from engagement to cause confusion on enemy ranks. Smoke and mirrors are one of the most effective battle tactics after all. Why not even give them to king's guards for last resort defence against charging enemy or even indoor use if defending a fortress or such. You wouldn't have needed a big group with these weapons. It would've only done harm to your overall army strength for reasons Tod explained in the video.
Great stuff as usual Todd. I would like to make a small general criticism of the whole idea of approaching the ammo supply issue from the standpoint of 'Well, if I want to fire this thing for an hour, I need X amount of arrows'. Just like in contemporary times, it wouldn't work like that. Take the minigun, which is normally mounted on helicopters. With that rate of fire, if you're calculating firing in terms of minutes you'd need so many bullets you'd never get the helicopter off the ground. But they are still used. Why? Because the advantage of a high rate of fire is not to fire 5 times as many bullets over the span of an hour but to fire 5 times as many over the span of 2 seconds when you really need it - passing a target at high speed with a narrow window of opportunity to hit anything. In the medieval context, these narrow windows of opportunity would also exist - a charge you need to repel, blokes making a go at scaling the walls, a quick barrage before your own surprise charge, and so on. This is where rate of fire comes into play. I very much doubt that medieval battles played out with a relatively constant stream of arrows until the archers ran out. Rather, there would be positioning, shooting at a vulnerability, withdrawals, charges and counter-charges, lulls with no much of anything happening etc. All of these would increase the effect of a ability to deploy a weapon with a high rate of fire. Not saying logistics is irrelevant, just that I think it would be a minor consideration given how the weapon would be probably be used. Cheers!
If I had been a medieval lord, I would have cavalry equipped with this bow. A quick hit and run, firing multiple arrows at the enemy line, withdrawing, reloading, repeating. And I would turn it into a crew operated field artillery type weapon for use by the infantry against formations.
The best historical horse archers could probably already shoot as fast as person can with this, using speed-shooting techniques. Cavalry bows tended to be around 75% of the draw weight of infantry bows, which made them easier to shoot swiftly. So you'd reinvent horse archery, but throw in a more expensive contraption? It could work, but seems a bit awkward. For whatever reason, horse archery only saw limited use in medieval Europe.
The reason that horse archery saw limited use in medieval europe is that the terrain and style of warfare did not really allow for it to be such a useful tactic. It's why the mongols got hindered once they started to reach closer to central Europe, and if they hadn't pulled back due to the death of their leader they would likely have switched tactics and army composition to be able to invade further with success.
@@duchessskye4072 Horse archery ain't great for taking castles, sure. But it seems well-suited to skirmishing & raiding, as was widely practiced in medieval Europe. Mounted crossbowers who shot from the saddle saw more action than most folks realize (see Paul Dolnstein's sketchbook, for example), & there were some mounted archers who shot from the saddle too, but lance & sword still seem more common cavalry weapons overall, including for skirmishing & raiding. A bit curious, but then weapon choice is in part cultural.
@@benjaminabbott4705 yes, there's some mounted skirmishing in europe too. But not to such a large scale as the mongols used, because the tactics the mongols used with their numbers of horse archers wouldn't really work in the not-so-flat or open terrains of most of Europe. Without a lot of room to manuever, large numbers of horse archers lose their effectiveness. Skirmishing in smaller numbers still works, but you cannot base armies around that
I'm just loving how these colabotaions goes on in such a lovely way! Scientists telling you that you all are doing a great thing with this brain-child of Mr Sprave, others just likeing it, and there's not much flinging of ape poo. I've been following this from the beginning, and I'm just loving this so much! Keep on going, and never say you're sorry for having a different opinion! But, this is RUclips after all, and not everyone understands that you can have a different opinion without becoming an enemy. Wasn't taught in schools? I remember it being taught... Maybe it's because I'm old and my mind is going gaga! :-) All the best to all of you from Sweden.
I could imagine the instant Legolas as a stationary defensive weapon: You take an especially heavy, lets say 350 pound Longbow, and mount a heavy instant legolas fix to it. Then you attach that to a mount. Have the side of the instant legolas device geared in the same fashion the gearing for windmills worked in the middle ages-> have small poles sticking out of its side in constant intervals. Then on the mount have a revolving gear, wich intersects with the poles and rotates when you push or pull the instant legolas. Then have a very large gear with a handle on the mount, connected with the small gear, but rotated 90°. In front of that, a wooden shield is mounted. The whole mount sits on a platform with a 2 - 3m long lever attatched to it. So the guy turning the handle can stand on the platform behind the shield. Another guy is manning the lever, and is turning the whole thing horizontaly. Another guy stands behind the guy who is turning the handle, and rotates the whole assembly vertically, and he is feeding in new arrows. The whole thing is meant as a static defensive weapon ontop of walls or other emplacements.
finally someone think it can be stationary same as me lol my version is fix place bipod leg that can free rotate up down and sideways to aim around, turn it to shoot like crossbow but use whole body to pull the string and have another guy doing reload arrow.
Such things did in fact exist. It was evolution of the Roman Ballista. Repeating cartridge crossbows and more especially pepper box ballista (that fired smaller arrow packs) as well as repeating cartridge fed ballista all existed. The reason being it was easier to build a cartridge system into a fixed position weapon vs something rather small and finely constructed as the instant legolas. I would compare the rarity of something like the instant legolas would fit into the same vein as the use of complex and fancy wheel-locks in the early firearm era where custom wheel-locks were finely crafted and expensive arms. Even more so the speed of the legolas is about the same as the speed of your skilled Mongol Horse Archer who could fire just as quickly by using their lighter horse bows. Honestly the Long Bow is unique in the world of bows to begin with and it's heavy draw was as well. Heavy draw crossbows existed but by far most war bows were lighter draw.
since the mechanism takes care of the (re)loading the projectiles I could imagine that bow greater poundage could still be operated manually. One person could use both hands in combination with legs to pull the bow in "rowing" stance. That way you could get strength and speed from single device.
I supect you would have quite a change in siege or rather the defence of castles. On the psychological level, I totally agree with your statement that if a thing is new and fun, people are going to want it - but if its capable on top of that, it would have shurely been widely adopted. I think its great fun to hypothesise on matters like this. Great video, as always. And shout out to Joerg for his ingenious invention!
Agreed! These could be deployed as medieval highly trained SF contingents attached to the army, so they could be inserted in special situations. As reserves, as flankers, or defending against flankers, attacking hotspots on an already established battlefield, turning or collapsing formations. As far as reloading, they could work in groups alternating shooting/reloading, as well as being supported by a contingent of regular archers that would bring the pain while the SIL reloaded. They would definitely be most effective when working in a group of highly trained specialists with a varied skill set. It may be that all or part of the unit are SIL operators, or that the SIL would just be another tool in their toolbox and they would adjust these tools to fit the problem they are anticipating or dealing with. Great video! Cheers
11:25 The reload problem could be alleviated by having multiple squads of instant legolas archers taking turns firing. When one group needs to reload, another group starts firing, rinse and repeat. Or like you mentioned near the end of the video, have them be replaced by normal archers while they reload.
Sorry I know it's been years. But I completely agree with you on volley formations. In the hands of men-at-arms. I'd say 100-50 men formations in 4 ranks would work best. As for resupplying them. Horse runners. That's my idea for field battles.
@@kuesdav It's the german word for Chain Mail. The capital letters were intended as a joke. I didn't get the meaning of your previous comment. I assumed it was french? Therefore I replied with the german equivalent.
Only just stumbled across this video (thanks RUclips algorithm) but you make a lot of good points regarding the device. I could see this being used in defending battlements, you have a line of archers on top of the walls raining arrows on those that get within range at a rapid pace and essentially force a retreat. The enemy would potentially think that you have far more bodies then you actually do. Thanks for the insight into the device and medieval applications.
When I first saw this design I instantly saw it as a tower archer's weapon loosing volley after volley. You are also correct that this would've been a toy of the wealthy as well. Adventure on my friend, Phat
I also believe trained soldiers would have this. A perfect weapon for townguards that patroll streets and need something that can burst out damage in case of an attack. Also perfect for guards that protect a carriage on a open forest road. You expect thieves and robbers and not military longbowmen to attack you.
Most medieval town guards would probably have done basically nothing for most of their careers except yell at drunks and occasionally chase off smugglers. Many were part-time, amateur volunteers motivated by a sense of civic duty and a small financial stipend. Medieval life wasn't a video game- there was arguably a higher risk of violence than in most communities in developed countries today, but for the most part people generally tried to go about their lives peaceably.
What about mounted archers? They could definitely enclosed their gap and retreat at the same time while carrying a bags of arrows. The Saracens did this tactics against the Crusaders while mounted
Until they know about the device... rumors spread fast. But it would make a HUGE difference for one or two times. After that there would be a fear of few years, a fear of not understood technology AKA black magic.
with shorter arrows, you can decrease cost per arrow, due to the reduction in scarcity of materials and man hours to make. With less feathers, same again. and shorter arrows also means that you can carry more arrows in the same container and beast of burden. Lets be generous and call it a 1/4 reduction in cost per shot. in terms of lagistics. The easiest way to service these bows, would be arrow bundles tied up with twine. Put one bundle under each arm, and one boy can provide in one trip enough arrows for dozens of archers. They only need 5 per volley, with enough on hand to reload a few times. There best battlefield use would be for breaking charges. Hitting them with a full fire volley would make it much easier to repel them.
Problem arises when the arrows made in a village where 14 27.1 mm inches makes an ell need to fit in a magazine made in a village where 12 24.9 mm inches makes a foot, though.
The magazine limits the size of the arrow, the arrow heads, and arrow weight. Combined with the weaker poundage of the bow, I doubt stopping power and penetration would be as good as a normal bow with higher poundage, and bigger heavier arrows. Penetrating through mail+padded armour might not be all that easy especially at longer ranges.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 it's basically firing super large bolts. anything less than a knite in full plate and gamberson is going to be susceptible to the fire of these things when in range.
@@abrr2000What would be a realistic poundage for a bow employed with the IL? Taking that into account together with the smaller and lighter projectiles(because they're small and need to fit in the magazine), and the distance to the target. Would penetration against mail+padded armour, or a brigandine be adequate? Kinetic energy, projectile mass, sectional density, arrow head design, etc, matters. A normal warbow with potentially higher poundage(than a bow with the IL), with normal longer heavier arrows(than the bolts shot from the IL) would penetrate more, and do more damage after penetration. Where the IL would shine isn't in stopping power or penetration, but volume of shot. Almost like an MLRS, only that its a bow. Also, effectiveness would only be in closer range. Longer heavier arrows with better sectional density and ballistic coefficient, shot from a powerful bow would have better range, penetration and stopping power.
I see this going two ways, a lighter version for light cavalry: hit and run, flanking, maybe some policing in the country side,... and a heavier version mainly for use in cities: guarding, defending, crowd control,... I wonder if on horse back this thing makes any sense though, I think a Mongol horse archer would beat it easily.
@@GAMA830 It's already hard to reload a traditional bow on horseback, and assuming you devleop a clip to reload these, it'd be far easier I'd argue, compared to traditional horseback archery. Even if you're getting bounced around, I'm not sure it'd be any worse than usual horseback archery.
The rate of fire would probably be similar, it would definitely take a lot less to train someone to shoot on horseback with these things than to train their whole lives learning to rapid fire arrows like the Mongols from a recurve bow
@@SCComega one could argue that it would be easier to reload, being that you basically only have to slide the arrow into a hole, but then again reloading multiple arrows at a time would be slower than a normal bow
@@rikospostmodernlife Sure, but considering you're not worried about sustained fire on horseback, but instead bursts in hit-and-run methodology, it seems like that shouldn't be overly a downside in that particular role.
Good points made! I'd agree that it would most likely have been a limited issued specialist weapons used for very specific applications, like defending in a Siege. Archers would first use longbows as the enemy was still far from the walls, then when they came closer they could perhaps switch to the IL
Great points, Tod. Especially use of the IL in the defense. Especially naval warfare and battlements. That also reduces some of the logistical challenges of having larger amounts of arrows near the archers.
This is how I've been seeing it used. You can have plenty supplies ready for them, and a few highly-trained people can take-on and halt an entire army, which is what a castle is meant-for; as a force-multiplier.
Maybe, but I see the SIL in the same role as a Bren gun, eg, a light machinegun/squad assault weapon. So not for a single guard, but definitely as a force multiplier providing overwatch in a protective structure like a watch/outpost tower at a checkpoint or a market town where a lord has an organised crime, rebellious population, covetous neighbouring lords or religious cult problem.
On an open field I would think range is key. Doesn't matter how fast / accurate you can shoot if the enemy can just stand out of your range and pick you off, no matter how slowly. Also complexity is important. You see it with nerf/dart blasters. Often people will prefer a simple reliable blaster over a higher capacity, more powerful, more complex one because a jammed blaster is useless.
Raids (chevauchées?), ambushes, anywhere that a smallish professional team of archers could devastate a poorly armoured enemy force with little risk to themselves.
I've mentioned before that I think the SIL favors, for this reason, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and robberies. The strategic effect would be to make poorly controlled territory perhaps a lot more dangerous, and this might lead to a more pronouncedly binary choice between imposing totalitarian control or letting an area fall into chaos.
I think you nailed it in terms of it being a very specific tool that fills unique niches. It has certain strengths and weaknesses that make it not very effective as a general purpose weapon, but like back then with things like billhooks and Rondel Daggers and warhammers and the things you mentioned, or even today with things like Masterkey shotguns and compact SMGs and flashbang grenades, there are certain weapons built to accomplish very specific tasks. To me, this thing excels in 2 situations in particular. Either in the hands of raiders/skirmishers/shock troopers, where you send them to a soft enemy target like a lightly guarded enemy camp during a battle, have them blitz the enemy with a ton of arrows in a very short time, then either run away, or drop the SIL and draw their sidearms and get to pillaging. I guess in this role you could also ambush a target in advance of your infantry's arrival, to soften them up. The other big use I could see is during siege, where reloading is no big deal because you have cover behind the walls. And I guess they could have been used sort of like how the Genoese Crossbowman used Crossbows, where you have a shooter, a loader, and a guy with a pavise, where you have 2 dudes carrying SILs. and while the shooter is shooting, the loader is reloading the other SIL so when one runs dry, the other is ready to go, as a sort of bonus use for it.
Great video, I like that you have arrived at the same conclusion almost everyone else who have ever tried to make a slow firing weapon, a rapid fire weapon. The Chu Ku Nu ancient chinese repeater crossbow, also had to be reduced drastically in power to shoot fast, it was very weak. When people tried to make automatic weapons with firearms, they went from rifle rounds to pistol rounds very quickly too. So doing a rapid fire bow, it only makes sense that the draw weight would be similarly reduced, just like every other system on this principle.
I think there's a large middle ground between longbowmen who have been training for years and untrained, undisciplined peasantry that isn't being addressed here. For starters, you wouldn't see many peasants in medieval armies anyway. It wouldn't have been logical to take away so many farmers from their fields for a lengthy military campaign, because they are of much more value doing the job they were meant for; providing food for your people and armies. And because they are untrained and undisciplined, they aren't reliable soldiers in any situation. So medieval nobles would have gotten their cheap soldiers from elsewhere. I think a better equivalent for who would have been using the SIL is the average crossbowman or urban militia. These people were middle class workers, typically craftsmen or merchants, who were wealthier than peasants, and would have likely been responsible for providing their own arms and armour. In times of war, these workers can afford to be away from their trade because they are not tied to the land and the seasons. They likely would have either been given training enough to use their weapons decently well, or would have practiced using and maintaining their weapons in their own free time. Crossbows could take nearly as long to reload as the SIL, and could only fire once for every 4-5 shots the SIL can fire. Another excellent comparison can be made with soldiers using flintlock muskets; soldiers with muskets were trained how to maintain their weapons and reload them quickly in battlefield situations, but didn't need to spend several years building up muscle mass to use them. The SIL could perhaps have been even more game-changing in the era of flintlock warfare than it would have been in the Middle Ages, because for every single shot a musket can fire, the SIL could fire 5 (and more accurately at that), and then the SILman could take a knee and reload while his comrade behind him could take over firing.
He tried to create one using techniques that would've been available at the time, but couldn't get something that would've been feasible for a 100lb+ war bow. The forces acting on a bow of that power are immense, and it's a tricky engineering problem even with modern materials.
This is one of the most interesting advantages when applied to medieval times, so I would like to hear how that development has gone. Last I knew, Tod said that the fans were going to submit ideas for review/implementation so hopefully we get an update soon on that
Cool vid : _ regarding the fact that the archers get tired, the bow could have been used not by individuals but by teams, where soldiers rotate the roles of shooting and help with reloading. That could be a solution to use it with a high poundage. _ Also war wagon warfare (like the Hussites used) would be a perfect setting for use of this weapon. A defensive setting, close to the arrow supplies. Keep up the good work. Cheers.
You are spot-on with your ideas and thoughts about where this could have fit in and how it could have been employed. When you were talking about how this might have been used (or not) in field positions with normal archers, I started thinking about some theories of use for those multi-shot guns, pepperboxes, etc, in that if your archer line is about to be overrun, or there is some sort of delay with arrow supply, a couple of archers trained and armed with the repeater bows could "firehose" the enemy to help cover a tactical retreat or delay the opposition / make them reconsider their attack on the main archer line, etc, giving the supply chain time to refresh, or as mentioned, allow for a tactical retreat or repositioning. Another thing I thought about relating to what you were saying about archers properly trained with these repeaters vs "peasanty" who might fumble with the mechanism and put themselves into bad situations; in 17th century context with the rise of the Trained Bands with muskets, there were several letters and anecdotes from officers preferring bands/companies who were well trained and familiar with (muskets) as a tactical advantage, etc. vs untrained, unprofessional conscript units. But I also try to keep in mind what you mentioned a few times, being the Supply Chain. Manufacturing quality arrows in massive quantities in short order let alone getting them to the Repeaters would certainly be problematic, and I think gets overlooked by us historians and enthusiasts today. Whenever we have a new, rapid-fire mechanism, it's always down to how much ammo you can carry, how likely it is to jam, and when you run out, then what. The argument about being able to stand at your position and pepper an enemy over hours, or, dart around the field and only be able to blast a ton of shots for a few seconds, but then unable to hold the ground, it's been argued for millennia. Excellent work and thank you for doing it. I used to despise getting into the "What If" arguments, but probably because it always devolved into "argument" instead of a nerdy, fun, thinking exercise. I appreciate your (and everyone else involved) approach.
Agree: I could see these being kept in castles armoury's where a siege assault might be expected. Imagine an assault during the crusades where suddenly fifty men on the walls with 2xSIL each and a reloader stocking the second bow between volleys. Used at the right moment they'd have been devastating in killing/wounding and moral of the attackers.
Nope, you need as many bowmen as you have SILs, because the bowman can't rapid fire more than one magasine at a time before they need a few minutes rest and water. Which would be done while topping up the magasine.
This are a very interesting arguments as basically what were happened to early guns period. Even the simplest gun would make a some peasants confused af when troubleshooting needed. The effective solution? Make it a culture & pretty much drill training & traditions. So I can see why Tod would like to prefer a trained soldiers use SIL bows instead of peasants. A super weapon being used by trained sharp shooters for max effectiveness. Just like a SAS squad will get the best weaponry & equipment to do their job most effectively. But I would argue that what if SIL concept became the normalcy? Just like Tod said about civilians usage. If a middle class people could afford it or produce it themselves then it become a daily normal weapons, just like normal bows & crossbows. SIL could be made from 99% wood too so it's certainly far more cheaper than other metal works products like swords, armors, etc. This is what I think Joerg trying to say about the SIL concept as a very modular tool that could be use & affordable by common folks, even an elderly ones. Just a reminder, Joerg's SIL concept was based off historical "arrow guiding tool" that was used by elderly hunters so they could use a less draw weight bows with shorter/lighter bolts/arrows.
I don't see any way that a weapon which is 3 times more expensive to make than a crossbow could've replaced the ubiquity of the longbow in peasant life. The materials aren't the issue, it's the massive time investment such a complex mechanism requires.
@@furrytrash8399 Just as today, people would want to have one for fun. An I could imagine a weaker "peasant version" for bird and rabbit hunting. For the less trained archer, the SIL is still much more accurate. And you have a 2. shot within 2 seconds if needed.
@@espneindanke9172 ok but like, how are these peasants going to afford something that's clearly quite expensive to manufacture? Owning a sports car is fun, but I don't see the average dude driving around in one.
@@furrytrash8399 I don't see this being as expensive as Todd made out. He built one model and pulled out all the stops on it. A medieval one would be refined to a minimalist form which the maker had made hundreds of. There would probably even be some DIY with making you're own strapping and other accessories.
@@furrytrash8399 It's not like they had no spare time back then. Especially in winter, a lot of work was done inside the house. For example: In winter tools were made for the next harvest season. Women often made clothes themselves. A simple piece of clothing took several weeks. This "time constraint" of today did not exist back then. If it took a month or two, it was like that. No problem. And if any special tools were needed you simply borrowed them. EDIT: I think, most people would have tried to make one by themselves. And just as Jörg did, they would probably "failed" with the first attempts.
Awesome video! I love how you didn't just state your views, but the reasons behind them. I think the Instant Legolas would be an awesome ambush weapon. If one Robin Hood could fire enough arrows to seem like 4 merry men, it would be easier to pull of a highway heist!
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
So much wisdom in just over 15 minutes of your elaboration... I actually agree with you on many points. I also think that the SIL would have been issued to specialists that are brought into the fight in very specific situations. Their range would be shorter than the range of the regular archers as their bows would be weaker, and of course their weapons would be more complex = expensive. I think a medieval SIL is very comparable to the modern day light machine gun. You don't give one of these to every soldier. You bring in the machine gun when you need to fight against lots of opponents that are not too far away, maybe approaching or running away. You just need to shoot as many arrows against them in shortest possible amount of time? THAT is when a SIL would be most useful. In an open field battle, that would be the case if the enemy's infantry men are charging and come within a 100 meters or so to your own army.
Of course this is also the case in many other fighting scenarios, just as you said. Raids on a convoy. Naval battles. But I do think there would have been SIL battalions in regular armies as well.
I also agree that you need trained soldiers that can competently operate the SIL. But I do believe that it takes much less training to become a good SIL man than to become a good longbow warrior. We are talking a few weeks, maybe three months, until a peasant can be called a SIL specialist. It takes many years to become a proficient longbow man who can handle a powerful warbow, and only talented people will qualify in the first place. I think this is comparable to modern day machine gunners vs. snipers. Snipers need talent AND training. Machine gunners, just the training, and much less of it.
Of course I do agree with you 1000% on the issue of "history made interesting". This is one of the most thought provoking collaborations I have ever seen on RUclips. Besides, it involves FOUR RUclipsrs from three different countries and two different continents. If that isn't epic, than I don't know what is.
Thank you. You are right that a few weeks/months training would get people up to speed, but by that time they are soldiers. Many of the comments seem to indicate handing it to a guy training him for an afternoon and letting him go and I don't think that is where you would get the best out of this device. What also occurred to me looking at comments is that of course you do not have to shoot an entire mag in one go, you can burst shoot 3 for example and whilst you are waiting for the situation to evolve you can load up the shots you have taken, so a reload speed does not always have to be factored in as it is will not always be relevant.
Its been great- thanks
Wouldn't this be more like a shotgun? Something to storm into a building with. Short range, bursts of shots, intervals which allow for rest and reloading. I can see such a situation give an advantage to the Instant Legolas when you break into rooms. In those moments, you don't need range or power. Just masses of arrows. And the narrowness of these passages wouldn't allow for many archers to be standing next to each other.
You might have two archers break through and be facing 5 men. Those two archers would have the capacity to quickly return fire against those five men.
SWAT situations basically.
I wonder if the concept could also be used for weaker ballista. Similar to a rowing machine with two men who load and fire the weapon in rhythm.
I see Joerg more as the machine gunner from TF2 more than the sniper lol
No wonder Joerg made the SIL
God I loathed history classes back in school, boring "facts" repetition
I can see this being good for defending merchant caravans. A small group of guards could quickly unload a couple dozen arrows at ambushing brigands who likely wouldn't be heavily armored in the first place.
On some other videos you made I've heard you say that you're not a scientist. I know of course what you're meant to say there, but as a scientist myself (yet no historian), I just wanted to say that this discussion here and the whole medieval mythbusting series is about as scientific as it gets. You present your well-researched evidence, you form hypothesis about what we don't know yet, you test them out in experiments and then discuss your results with the community.
Academic or not, I would call you a scientist. You are advertising scientific thinking and respectful discourse, something the world desperately needs in these weird times.
Thank you Robin, that is very kind and I suppose what I am saying is that in science you absolutely, exhaustively, try to get everything right. I do work a scientific way but I am much more general, so just as a casual guy who mends a car is not a mechanic, I do not see myself as a scientist. Besides, I am too busy to pursue the standards of proof required.
Agree. His sample sizes might be small, but they're still well thought out experiments, and I've seen worse sample sizes with more flawed methodologies passed off as good science before
Sure, an academic researcher would probably still pursue things a little different, but the scientific method and it's way of thinking are shared by both hobbyists and professionals.
What I meant is that science is often pictured as this super complicated, extremely meticulous thing with mathematical equations all over the place and papers spread across the floor. Sometimes that's true, but what often gets lost in the narrative is the curiosity that lies at its heart, and the whole fun of it. Videos like yours bring that along, and that's why I said they are advertising science in a way. It gets people to think about a topic and to ask questions.
And it entertains PhD students that are procrastinating their work in the middle of the day, to randomly mention something that absolutely never happend to me. Ehem.
The Historical method and the Scientific method are very closely aligned. Both form hypothesis, conduct research, and present their findings. The difference is that Historians look into the past, while Scientists look into the future
@@tods_workshop I recommend this whole series as a perfect example of the old saw about the difference between theory and practice - in _theory_ things work, but in _practice_ they don't.
_THIS_ is *ENGINEERING* in capital letters.
Speaking as an engineer who launches new products, the inventors usually lack practicality. All the points you raise - how to supply the Instant Legolas, how to move with it, defence against long-range weapons, possible specialized uses, training needed, applying and removing protection, what a bowman might expect - are necessary to progress from idea to table-top demonstrator to first prototype to second prototype to something that is useful and can be used, manufactured at scale, repaired, and maintained. And often it's better to experiment with a knowledgeable eye than overdo the theory.
I do suspect, though, that your point about "what would a peasant do if it jammed" has been answered. When you first showed us your mediaevalized version, IIRC you took it apart into something like seven pieces in about ten seconds! If you had a way of restraining the bowstring in case of a jam, repairs and maintenance could be quite easy.
In normal undamaged and maintained use I would be surprised if it jammed at all - you've put bone runners/guides in, you've chosen specific materials elsewhere. You only have to make this thing work for four hours or so (which might only be one thousand arrows), then you'll either be dead or you'll have time to conduct maintenance. What I would like to see is the range of environments where it can be used - when it's raining, when it is 30° in the shade or ten degrees of frost, and so on.
Strategically, this would have added to the medieval arms race - tactics to kill the Legolases would have been developed, the Genoese/Flemish mercenaries would have stolen the design and so forth.
A situation that comes to mind for this, coming from a firearm fan: The Siege of Plevna. A situation where the besieging army was wielding single-shot rifles, while the besieged army was wielding single-shot rifles... And had a small line of troops with lever-action, pistol-caliber repeaters.
At Plevna, the defenders would fire the single-shots as normal, until the enemy closed within a certain range of their firing line. THEN the repeaters would open fire, unload as fast as they could to drive off the threat.
That's the sort of application I can see for this myself.
Exactly!
Yes absolutely. It would be so useful for driving off the people carrying ladders or battering rams.
My mind also went immediately to Plevna. There's something incredibly useful about having repeating fire, even in short bursts.
I suggested a couple guys on the walls with these during a siege. You start climbing the ladders, and suddenly a few guys with these (and extra's with squires reloading them) start shooting arrows down at that speed. With only 10 archers, you are looking at 250 arrows a minute into the people at the base of the wall. Add in all the other things they used, and it would be demoralizing.
Yes, a tactical shock weapon to break an attack or exploit a weakness, focusing combat power to punch a hole in a weakened formation for further exploitation through penetration or rout. Because of logistical issues, perhaps better for defence including a prelude to a counter attack. Unlikely to be useful for attack per se. Although maybe useful in covering a withdrawal?
"Berthold had thought this job was easy. Guarding a knight's castle would've been easy if it had been anyone but him. He demanded they train with this ridiculous weapon for months until they were allowed into action. Then the war came, as it always did. Berthold had thought that they were in for a siege, but he was wrong again. After a week, they came with ladders against the wall. Then his knight commanded his guards into action. They brandished those strange weapons, bows or crossbows, he wasn't sure. As they took aim, Berthold wasn't sure if they'd been any good. He was never so happy to be wrong. They cleared the ladders in seconds, and once they were clear, few men were brave enough to climb them, and they could be dealt with by regular archers. When they came with a ram, Berthold and his fellows went to the murder holes above the gate and shot down onto them, and soon the ram was abandoned. Long after the castle was safe and the war was over, Berthold was glad to have been in the knight's service and to have carried that weapon. Then the Pope banned it for taking Christian lives too efficiently."
Just something I whipped up as an example.
Nicely written- thanks
@@aPlanetaryCitizen It's definitely going to be written in to my worldbuild as a weapon to combat the, what is in essence, Welsh longbowmen that used guerrilla tactics.
i can see there being two or three ranks , the first two ranks normal longbows , the third rank are armed with the instant legolas , as the enemy cavalry come into range they charge the archers , first rank fire , and retreat second rank fire and retreat and then the instant legolas archers , let loose a barrage from hell as the cavalry receive an eight second blast of arrows without raising a sweat. Their mates come forward again and pot shot anyone still standing . not sure i would like to be receiving that many arrows . Archers convert to church of England and bugger the popes ban.
@@blackg0076 cavalry was mostly heavy armored, while instant legolas can't pierce armor effectively
@@mitko1955 those crafty archers nearly always has pointy things that horses didnt like , just in case .
"Don't throw insults. Throw information."
I love it!
Thank you Todd for your insights.
I'm one of the people who originally called your name out to receive one of these, because I felt a little experimental archaeology was needed here. Keep doing what you do.
Thanks for putting me up
This would be a great ambush weapon. Set up a trained unit in hiding, when the enemy gets into position just let loose a sudden rapid fire volley. As soon as the arrows run out you run for it while the enemy is in a panic.
This would only work if there were no cover. If there's cover, folks just hide after the first arrow. That was how crossbowers skirmished against archers. They didn't just stand there, they took cover while spanning their bows.
@@benjaminabbott4705 Sneak attack on an encampment? Three or four of these, each with a hundred arrows, one with arrows on fire.
I'd also like to use noise-making arrows for the scare effect.
@@jeremywilliams5107 You could do the same thing with conventional bows & speed-shooting techniques, though that presumably requires more training.
@@benjaminabbott4705 You're right, that's me overcomplicating.
Or alternatively, when the bows run out, toss them and draw sidearms, and capitalize on the confusion. Or even have a small group of men at arms hiding with you to charge when the bows run dry.
Special forces talk about "speed, surprise, and violence of action" and that's exactly what the Instant Legolas would have provided. I think we would have seen a lot of medieval commandos.
I was thinking exactly the same, perhaps for ambushes where the first 10s is the most important or to be used by sort of in a Dragoon style where you can ride up to any exposed troops/support people/whatever, do some damage really quickly then get away to reload when you're not actually fighting.
I was thinking a long similar lines. There is something to be said for cover and move tactics used today. I'm not sure how well they would be used in medieval combat but a fire rate of fire does make it more possible to utilize. There's a lot of good comments about using it in ambush situations or siege situations. Speed, surprise, aggressive action, and cover for soldier maneuverability would make this weapon shine. I think Tod makes a good point. How much of that happens on an open battle field? Is this weapon better used in guerrilla warfare?
@@willdbeast1523 Dragoon idea is super interesting. I think you've nailed it. That would be terrifyingly effective.
I can totally see that happening. Commandos were created to serve a very specific purpose in warfare. They operate behind enemy lines in close quarters and high risk situations. SIL is perfect for that. Behind enemy lines you wouldn't encounter many armored opponents, in close quarters you don't need the range so you can carry a lighter bow, and the rate of fire SIL provides would be perfect in high risk situations, be it to allow the commandos to retreat after a hit-and-run, or maybe to cause panic and chaos breaking the supply lines, or to maximize chances of an assassination attempt being successful. This would no doubt be the weapon of choice for medieval commandos.
Makes it something that would be very cool in an RPG or fantasy book, where you have "The Protagonists
"
The respect for differening opinions is so refreshing in this polarizing era.
just what I was thinking ... discussion and argument without doxing, being cancelled or called ist/phobe .... almost like we're civilized, rational people! ;o)
To be fair there's really no moral dimension to this debate so it's easier to be civil.
Maybe there is hope for humanity
This would potentially be such a force multiplier to fort defense that I can easily imagine plenty of small defensive structures being erected to accommodate wielders. Potentially great for coastal defense too.
As grim as it sounds, it could also be used against peasant rebellions. Think about it - you're outnumbered, but they're unarmoured and probably don't have the weapons to reach you.
Low-power variants could also be great during ship boardings.
Fair warning first, i don't claim to have any specific knowledge about the medieval times, my points will be based on my "common sense".
This devise seems bulky, heavy, expensive, difficult to store or transport in it's operational form a bit less so if taken apart. If someone has to carry that devise, he i don't se him carry much else. So in the field it would probably be better to just carry a longbow/crossbow and more arrows/bolts. I don't see people marching through fields holding these. (And i am quite sure it would take too long to assemble them when the enemy is running at you with swords drawn)
Another part is reloading. You would need a bit of a break and space to reload it (to fiddle the arrows in the slot and not jam it.) Overall you would deliver a couple of arrows faster, but on average there wouldn't be too much of a difference. (i think in the other video they compared the Instant Legolas 120 pound to the 160 pound longbow, in which case the 5 arrows without reloading had about double the shooting speed, but considering the reload that that wouldn't really be faster. Apart from Joe, the archer, seeming to be more tired then shooting his heavier bow)
Because of the additional weight of the devise (which looks to be more than doubling that of the longbow) and the bow draw offset further back (offset caused by the distance between draw string and handle) while shooting, the bowman should tire a lot faster (apart from additional friction, etc.)
So hypothetical military use overall wouldn't seem too likely to me.
@@luckydead5875 I feel like the design principles of the I.L. could be scaled up into a devastating crew serve/siege weapon dual mounted on a fortification, ship or cart. Bigger more durable parts, a one two punch on target and relatively quick reload would have many applications, could be both a rich boy’s toy and effective weapon at the same time; just seems more likely to exist as artillery than as mass mobilized infantry weapon.
@@matts9116 My thoughts exactly!
The weapon will be much more effective mounted in a cart or tripod(or something) with a crew of 2-3 people operating it and a shield protecting them for any enemy snipers.
Heck! Maybe we'll see the first clip in an arrow before the bullet. And maybe, if the IL was invented in the past it might even accelerated the invention of repeating rifles.
Optimistic, but you'll never know.a
Definitely agree on the rebellion suppression purpose
i agree, fort defense and the rest, but maybe useful for guards of nobility on long distance travels... rapid dispatching of multiple opponents before they get within range to strike you.
it could even be like a designated marksmen of modern day.
you have a crew of average archers and other warriors, then you have the one specialist whose job is to nail the strays and provide cover fire during maneuvering.
I just love the fact that You, Shad, and Joerg are all working on this together, it's wonderful you three are some of my favorite youtubers
I imagine this would have been insanely effective in castle defense. In some documentaries I watched, I heard that most castles would be guarded by maybe a dozen people. Imagine you are trying to scale the walls and then theres a dude leaning over and raining 5 arrows down on you in less than 15 seconds. And while he reloads, a second lad unloads his magazine. I think in most medieval Europe this could have been a fantastic, even if expensive, device. In sieges like that, there are plenty situations where effective range becomes almost irrelevant = lower power is fine, so some drawbacks are negated. You could also easily increase the arrows stored in the guard towers to be quickly brought up to the crenellations.
Absolutely that's where/when i would deploy this sort of weapon!!! ammo re-supply sorted, reloading sorted, directed high volume of fire at mid-distance, perfect!!!
The Legolas would have pushed back the end of Feudalism by 100 years lol... Get back to your fields peasants, or you're getting Lego'd.
I could see there being issues getting the bow around the castle, up spiral staircases etc,
A traditional bow has a sleek profile and held close to the body, dosnt take up much more space than the person carrying it.
The instant Legolas has a great big thing sticking out the back making it much less manoeuvrable in a castle corridor.
Yes it can be dismantled but that then means it needs to be rebuilt.
Just my thoughts from trying to get round English castles and not smash my camera on things..
@@Windle_Poons The instant legolas can be mount anywhere, so you move it really easy.
@@seb4sti4n666 I would Like to see how quickly someone can get from the courtyard to the battlements and fire a shot in an average English castle compared to a traditional bow.
There is one group that would absolutely have used this: Mercenaries. They were already the types setting up with muskets and cross bows.
Not exactly Hero's (Legolas) but immensely competent Warriors with no hangers on, and you could turncoat on mass ! with no retribution.
Like the Burgundian hand-gunners or the Swiss Pikemen regiments. They are a prime example of specialist units that monetized their unique role and/or equipment on the battlefield, and someone somewhere would have done the same with this hypothetical medieval technology. The real thought experiment: WHICH nation or city/state would equip mercenaries most effectively with SIL?
I'm thinking also about mounted archers or skirmishers. Ride in, unload magazines, ride away to safety, reload. That or ambushes, harassment or guerilla warfare.
@@nondorian WoW, Bring back the light two man chariots, sadly desert based or pre-B.P. Folorn Hope prick the Oppositions Pride.
mercenary armys came after the feudal armies he'S talking about, but it's a good idea, they were piad well enough to invest in the lastest armor and weapons tech so they might would invest in a specialiced toll like the SIL
The advantages of the SIL is burst fire, and being able to hold the bow while cocked.
Someone mentioned mounted guards. I agree that a bow suitable for horseback archery would have to be used (Instant Genghis Khan). But it could be realy efficient. (Also a very good weapon for the brigands laying ambush.
Skirmishing cavalery. Perhaps even skirmishers on foot as well.
You talk a bit about open field battles. There I can see it being used for flank security, and also as a first line behind a pavis, just waiting for the enemy charge. High rate of fire could realy do a job on the charging formation.
Combined with a pavis, the ability of the SIL to be held cocked would be usefull, like it is for crossbows. You can cock it in safety, then expose yourself while aiming, fire, and get back into cover.
That's a couple of great points, skirmish cavalry is an excellent example of where this kind of system would be useful. They ride in, empty the magazine at the enemy, then ride away to reload, rinse, repeat... and the ability to hold it cocked is extremely useful with cover.
My version would be mounted infantry. Ride forwards to a flank/ambush position, blast the enemy then retreat. It would make an amazing shock weapon.
To extend your comment on skirmishing cavalery, I imagine this could have increased guerilla tactics since they could whittle away the enemy before the battle starts. Conversely it could be used to protect the baggage train from the enemy since that getting stolen was a major blow to a campaign.
A medieval blitzkrieg could have been created around such a device focusing on quick action to overwhelm opponents
It is theoretically possible to make a SIL with the trigger on the front grip, so it can be held cocked and fired with one hand only (the other hand holds the reins, in the case of a mounted archer/SILer).
Just two small things I'd like to point out:
- The ~1 million arrows were brought by Henry V's army for the campaign, not just for a single battle that was Agincourt. I think it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume they could not shoot their whole campaign supply in a single battle, even if they tried to.
- That particular campaign was very expensive. Henry V had to essentially pawn the crown of Richard II to get the money for it, among other loans.
I believe most people here underestimate the advatage of superior firepower, in a symetrical field battle if one side has 3 times the firepower it ether leads to 9 times more casulties on the opposing site, or more if the enemy flees before the charge is finished or get supressed and taken prisoner. Try it out in a strategie game. There are of course messures, tactic and strategies against that, but most lead to other severe disadvantiges, like limited moveability (castles) or inability to protect (gurilla warfare).
@@leonfa259 not sure how it's related to what I said
@@leonfa259 English battle doctrine was not symmetric, it was entirely dependent on being able to establish a static defense with field works protecting the archers and closing of the flanks. The more general European style of war in field battles was a battle of maneuver.
Superior firepower was not really a thing back then for most situations. The Swiss regularly just charged and destroyed enemies by outflanking them with militia pikemen with incomplete armor. Even a lot of their frontal charges were irresistable by anything but other pike formations aka missile troops did not make a sufficient dent in them to stop them. Incidently when we see them stopped it is again artillery in prepared field works preventing them to make their charge work... sounds familiar?
The thing about the Instant Legolas is that in function it can nearly perfectly mimic a bow when shot at a slower speed. You don't need to sustain high rates of fire with the device, you just need to be able to do it briefly when the situation calls for it. As a result of this, you can likely get away with the higher poundage, and therefore not suffer losses in range. I don't see why this couldn't have been deployed to a subset of archers, perhaps 10 or 20 percent in any and all situations. Based on your testing each Instant Legolas is the equivalent of 3.5 archers in terms of rate of fire during a burst, and since the other "normal" archers will still be firing, this would result in a 25 or 50 percent increase in arrows loosed during the salvo. As an extreme example a 40% deployment of Instant Legolasses would allow the number of arrows loosed to double during the burst. The only prohibiting factors are cost, additional weight, and the logistics of bolt supply. You've indicated that the cost in time and resources can be overcome, and your concerns for bolt supply can be greatly reduced if we reduce on average the rate of fire to be slightly greater than that of a normal archer (since bursts are infrequent). The only outstanding item is weight, and while the added mass might not be negligible in terms of its effect on the endurance and mobility of the archers I'm not sure that it would be overly prohibitive towards its use.
Considering they would be weaker bows than the bows used by the regular archers, wouldn't it mean that don't have the same range making them unable to properly shoot with the rest of the army?
I think they could have seen some use in battle but probably in more creative strategies like some sort of ambush or something.
I feel like if bandits got their hands on one of these, a lot of taxes aren’t going to be getting to the local lord. Bandits are sometimes ex military and battle hardened. 10-20 bandits with these on a backroad would be devastating.
Robin Hood would be a very different story if these were around, a darker and more bloody story I imagine.
If a bandit could afford a weapon like SIL, they wouldn't NEED to be a bandit in the first place. I have understood that crossbows were expensive, and SIL is as complex or even more complex to make than a crossbow = expensive piece of equipment.
@@IT-kone I feel it would make for quite the deterrent. A few man, loads of arrows in a short time, will make any wanna be robbers think twice.
I was thinking about this, ambushes with this thing would be terrifying and I cannot see how one would deal with it effectively. It's unheard of to see archers in relatively "close quarters" but with that many bows going off at once to the surprise of the enemy, the range does not matter
@@IT-kone couldn't they be stolen?
They don't need to fire 25 arrows a minute. You could fire 5, which would still be a highly effective rate. It also allows a much smaller force to fire a lot of arrows like a larger force.
Imagine a rapid reaction force to plug breaches in defenses.
That's exactly what Tod is saying. If you'd use them on an open field battle it'd be all about arrows per minute but that's not feasible with logistics and the reduction in power, instead you use them in specialized situations like the one you said.
Toth people did say that when bolt action rifles were introduced and again with semi autos that the quartermaster wouldn’t be able to keep up with the logistics of supplying so many bullets
Toth are you named after Toth from the Malloreon? He was one of my favorite characters.
@@osiris201 I don't think 'arrows per minute' is really the correct metric, particularly for a weapon like this with such fluctuating rates of fire.
Rather, I would argue that the appropriate metric is 'arrows per target _opportunity.'_ If you see someone stumble and drop their shield for a moment, how many arrows can you send at them in the time it takes them to recover? With a regular longbow, you _might, maybe_ get what? Two? With this, two or three would be _likely,_ and maybe more.
And with that, would you even particularly care if your total arrows per minute were held unchanged by logistical limitations? You don't need to fire more arrows. You just need to fire more arrows _when they matter._
I may be wrong, but I believe arrows are harder to make and definitely more burdensome to carry.
A situation where the instant Legolas would fit perfectly, is when war wagons were used, as they provided protection and arrow suplies.
Also in skimmishes, as a sort of "special operations", where some few archers would need greater firepower for short periods of time.
Wagonforts are the freaking best military innovation In history imho
Indeed. War Wagons were used all across Eurasia and Wagon forts even found its way to the Americas. The ancient Han Dynasty were known to have used armored war wagons protected by crossbowmen, archers, and halberdiers to fight off the horse archers and lancer cavalry charges of the armies of the Xiongnu Confederation. Czech general Jan Zizka used it to fight off heavily armored knights. The book "Great Walls and Linear Barriers" By Peter Spring draws parallels between the War Wagons of Jan Zizka and those of the Han Dynasty.
@@robertstuckey6407 If you want to read more about Wagon Forts and War Wagons, the book "Great Walls and Linear Barriers" By Peter Spring talks about War Wagons of Czech general Jan Zizka and those of the Han Dynasty. Here are some quotes about the ancient Han Dynasty version from it and from other books:
1) "At the Battle of Mobei in 119 BC the Han general, Wei Qing, used rings of heavily armed chariots, or wu gang, first to break Xiongnu charges, and then to launch a successful counter-attack These vehicles protected infantry and crossbowmen from Xiongnu arrows and gave them the security to be able to shoot back accurately. Han cavalry dealt with any Xiongnu who broke through." -Great Walls and Linear Barriers By Peter Spring
2) One of the best recorded expeditions involved an infantry force consisting of 5,000 veteran soldiers led by an experienced Han general named Li Ling. In 101 BC Li Ling led his regiment north into the Mongolian steppe in an attempt to provoke an engagement with the Xiongnu...they wore jacket like coats of lamellar armour fashioned from rawhide leather and steel platelets and carried bows for trajectory missile fire and crossbows for long range marksmanship. They traveled with a defensive line of reinforced supply wagons carrying a store of half a million steel tipped arrows and crossbow bolts. Li Ling marched his regiment several hundred miles into Xiongnu territory and then waited for the enemy to attack.
On the chosen battlefield, the Chinese supply wagons were drawn up into a defensive ring with the soldiers arranged in ranks around this protective position. The front line troops were equipped with long steel pikes to deter oncoming cavalry charges, while the inner ranks were placed in dense order and stood ready to fire bows and crossbows at any approaching target..."
-The Roman Empire and the Silk Routes: The Ancient World Economy & the Empires of Parthia, Central Asia & Han China by Raoul McLaughlin
3) "Han infantry employed in complementary formations, combining swords, crossbows, and halberds, all protected by armor, could be irresistible to the Xiongnu. One Han campaign against the Xiongnu in 93 BCE succeeded when the Han infantry preserved their formation and delivered concentrated disciplined crossbow fire in unified volleys...Han general Li Ling deliberately set out into Xiongnu territory with only five thousand infantrymen, without cavalry support. There were political and personal reasons for his rashness...Lu soon found himself surrounded by some thirty thousand Xiongnu horsemen. He retreated to a strong position, and, in the words of a near contemporary chronicle, he 'ordered his men to use the baggage trains as a circular laagaer rampart. He personally led his elite fighters holding halberds and shields to take up battle formation outside the encirclement, while the archers and crossbowmen with their bows fully drawn took up the rear making preparations for the Xiongnu assaults.' The Xiongnu charged and were repulsed by the halberdiers, who then withdrew into the laager. When the Xiongnu rallied to pursue the apparently fleeing halberdiers, the Han archers behind the wagons devastated them."
-Waging War: Conflict, Culture, and Innovation in World History By Wayne E. Lee
Not much room for a longbow, and too restrictive for opportunity shooting, which is where it excels. and slitting a throat is where the money is, or the lord gets it all....
I have a feeling the Mongols would have love the "instant Legolas". I can imagine them charging in, unleashing devastating hail of arrows then galloping away to reload. Kind of like the medieval Dragoon
Probably not, honestly. Using a heavy bow on horseback is difficult enough already; I don't see them using one that is more difficult to draw, as it would force them to lower their draw weights. Plus, they can't just drop it into their bow quiver if necessary the way they could with their actual bows, and it would be bulky and cumbersome to try to deal with that on horseback.
I doubt it too. It’s a bit big and cumbersome and rigid to maneuver on horseback, and those guys train archery from a really age. They’d be better at shooting regular recurves anyways. After they took some of the Chinese dynasties (xi xia, jin), they not only had access to repeating crossbows, which were smaller and arguably faster, but early gunpowder weapons too. They still didn’t really adopt either. Not to any considerable extent at least.
@@TheTommy9898 I believe the Mongols actually did employ some manner of gunpowder weapons, which was the reason why the recipe for gunpowder spread to Europe to begin with.
Of course, the Europeans refined them a lot better than the Chinese or Mongols ever did, but still.
@@gameragodzilla They did for sure, but what i mean is they didnt completely adopt it in any widespread manner during the European campaigns. They still used it in Asia through their Chinese forces though.
@@TheTommy9898 Eh, that's probably more due to how unsophisticated gunpowder weapons were at the time. The Europeans definitely refined that technology but it definitely was used enough such that the Europeans were able to come across the recipe.
Funny thing, gunpowder was kind of a fluke historically. Bows and arrows, spears, swords, etc. were all independently developed by practically every single culture, but gunpowder only was invented once and then spread through the world. Obviously there were tweaks, refinements and advancements in the recipe, but it's curious to wonder how the world of warfare would be different without it. Maybe the Instant Legolas would've been considered the "assault rifle" of that other world.
I have watched joerg, shad, and you for awhile before this collaboration and I am really enjoying watching your different skill sets play off of each other
Keep up the good work, I love your stuff
I had always envisioned this as a very effective anti-seige weapon. Ita shorter range, rapid fire would seem to be well suited to defending from enemies attacking the walls in large numbers or charging a breach. It would be very demoralising to have a hail of arrows coming at you from a small number of defenders, potentially leaving other defenders to 'snipe' with longbows or crossbows.
I could imagine it sucks a whole lot more, to have arrow fire you can't look up from.
I know the volley fire at a steep angle is mostly a movie thing, but I imagine you would "kinda" know when to take cover from the archers. The SIL would remove that aspect, and you'd have to weather out a rain of arrows rather than brave a shock attack.
@@slimlacy2 Are you speaking to the benefit of crenellations and machicolations against the attackers with potential at least wooden overhead cover within the defenses?
I'm with you! It makes a lot of sense as a specialist defensive weapon.
Nice point.
How about having a couple of these either side of an entryway - drawbridge, portcullis,... with a stock of arrows to hand. Could also be used on a rescue sortie, which would require shooting on the way out and on the way back, say about ten minutes.
sieges were about starving out the besieged not about epic battles, those were fought after months of cutting of the besieged of outside resources.
I would still call it a game changer because the things that it excels at would have been done more (e.g. guerillia tactics) and thereby change the nature of warfare.
Thanks for stating the obvious! - of course. You are right, war would develop around the weapon at least to some extent.
@@tods_workshop you're right, it is obvious that people would adapt to the existence of this new weapon and arguing over the definition of what does and doesn't qualify as a "game changer" is pointless.
It's impossible to know exactly how tactics would develop around this new weapon, but of course speculating is all the fun here.
One historical comparison would be the Chinese Chu Ko Nu, but I think the Instant Legolas could be made more powerful (mostly because of the longer power stroke) while also being much more accurate.
@@tods_workshop I posted in a previous video before I saw this one that I saw this as more of a defensive wall weapon, or interior weapon. Combined with a second archer so one does 25 arrows, the next does 25 and they alternate between 2 or 3 archers. One archer with one of these can easily shoot 5 in the time it takes them to fire one and knock the second. So if you had 5 archers in rotation, it would be slightly more effective than those 5 shooting all the time with regular bows. Imagine these on a wall with kids loading magazines or other bows with the device and handing them off. The kids would be safe for the most part unless there are high arching arrows - and there probably were... on the battlefield, I wrote, this wouldn't work well because if you get shot or killed, an enemy could pick up a likely loaded device and easily figure it out and shoot at friendlies. But for defense, on a walled city, these would've been a massive game changer. As for repelling people inside, it could've done a lot of damage but in that close range people could be knocked and cocked before rounding a corner and get a shot off - but with the front grip the people could have 10 of these already to go for the person coming around the corner. The downside is when that person gets shot they release the arrow and it will hit something - if it is a person or not, who knows.
You still not penetrating armor. Also those big war bows would be tough to has in the brush and thick woods without the magazine.
@@OpiatesAndTits Medieval woods were usually pretty tame actually, you wouldn't see a ton of underbrush because it interfered with hunting... So it typically was removed in hunting grounds, at least to some extent.
The best use case for it is when people are not wearing armor, it definitely excels at disrupting supply and hitting soft targets harder than anything else could, conceptually. Siege defence also would highly value something like this.
I think about it more like a musket. Imagine it like this - there's a line of soldiers with SIL shooting 5 arrows and going back for reload, then the next line comes forward shooting 5 arrows and going back for reload and so on, and so on... And while the SIL is getting reloaded a person gets its rest.
Makes sense to treat them in a similar way.
Yes, good call. That tactic is called a "rolling blockade," and you can use it stepping your lines forward, backward, or staying in place. It was very effective for the British in the colonial era with their muskets.
I thought the same thing but some people forget about how this kind of thing works and assumes everyone shoots at the same time
Add in some carts/wagons full of bolts mixed in the ranks and you could easily supply as many "bolts/arrows" as you could make
Get some Shields up and it's completly useless, while a huge load of archers just shots from max range behind it right into your "line infantry".
"My channel is listed as education, not entertainment."
I feel entertained nontheless.
It seems a perfect weapon for horseback archers, although not in a longbow form. The added mobility gets them in range where they can make use of their high rate of fire, and it also solves the logistics. The unit can go out and expend their arrows, then ride back to a supply point and pick up a new bundle of arrows like a jogger grabbing a water bottle.
I think I've got an idea of Tod vs Joerg's opinions:
- Tod is thinking in the mind set of *"it's first introduction in the medieval world"*
- Joerg is thinking after few years of developments and improvement by many military campaigns
@@jameschalkwig787 yes
basically, 2 advantages:
1- Manpower
2- Proficiency:
instead of training for decades to be a gud archer
=> train for decades to be a god "other" + Archer
* One last thing:
about not usable in open combat cuz range:
no.
sure, you get tired,....how about resting /or/ continuous group fire
Group 1 shouts
Group 2 rest and reloads
All of them: swordsmen spear-men cavalry
.....women.....peasants.....noble
then all switch to hand to hand (or at least the front lines)
rest fires when opportunity rises
@@jameschalkwig787 But that won't happen because of stress. People go to shit even when their life isn't at risk: examples being musicians forgetting how songs go during live shows, and people forgetting how to use their laptops during presentations (as a musician and someone who spent years in corporate IT I've seen too many of both to count!).
The issue with jamming - aka adding *problem solving* to a stressful situation - is a perfect example of this.
For it to be a weapon as you describe the commoner would have to be familiar with it from everyday use (so cheaply available), or to have had some intensive training that duplicates these problems under stress (which your peasant won't get). In this case the device would be ubiquetous, and very quickly adopted by all sides after the first couple of battles plus tactics put in place to mitigate.
EDIT: Tod's comment about the device being twice as time-consuming - therefore expensive - to build as a crossbow is very much relevant.
I think it's more likely that Tod has shot bows at the maximum draw weight he's able to draw quite often, and Jörg hasn't.
Speed of fire is nice, but sustained fire is what matters after the first rush, and there are other considerations as well, chief among these the range of fire.
Skirmishers perhaps, but even there the loss of range would hurt. Perhaps.
Light cavalry ... if you can shoot from horseback, and only need 5 shots, sure. But horse archers are rare and reloading would be tricky I imagine. In addition, most famous horse archers come from herder societies, not sure if they would be able to produce them in the first place. It also wouldn't be a skill that translates from hunting but is a dedicated anti-human invention. A further entrance barrier, though definitely not a deal-breaker. All in all, I'm not too sure about that light cav either.
I agree with Tod that open field battles wouldn't be the prefered place for this gadget. Losing range and sustainability for burst damage isn't what a field battle is about. I completely disagree with Tod in regards to logistics, if your arrow-per-kill doesn't go down - and I don't see why it should - all you do is win faster, not need more arrows. Probably need less arrows due to morale breaking earlier. Even if you do need more, that would be solved, no question about it.
Where I could definitely see the Instant Legolas is in sieges, suppressing defenders for a few short minutes from behind a pavise (or breaking charges from atop the wall), during anti-riot duty or for guards of all kinds. Bodyguard, caravan guard, gate guard. Wherever you can think of people having to fend off a quick, kinda-unexpected rush (or simply intimidate the opposition), these things seem like a good solution. Of course on the other side as well, it's ideal for ambushes.
Naval warfare wasn't on my mental list, but now that Tod mentioned it I can definitely see it as a useful tool at sea as well.
@@jameschalkwig787 Hell no, you won't. The draw assist only helps at the beginning of the draw (the easy part), so it does not increase the maximum draw weight you can use. Using a 160# bow (and Joe can shoot up to over 200#) requires years of regular practice, IL or no. A fit novice can manage maybe 70# with or without the draw assist, on a good day...i.e. _not_ after weeks of marching, disease, and poor diet on a campaign.
Also, as a matter of trivia, one of the major advantages of the Golden Horde was their massive tactical and strategic mobility, as well as their excellent organization and discipline. Your peasants will have none of these.
@@alexanderflack566 It is possible to make a pretensed assistance mechanism so that there is still some assistance at the end of the draw where it is needed the most.
Few counterpoints:
Logistics - it would be different, but in a good way. You would need fewer archers (less consumables) for the same firepower. Some of those free hands would be used for logistics, others would not be needed at all. Same thing would affect the price of the weaponS - you need fewer of them and you need fewer people to feed and operate them. I would guess, that this would more than compensate higher cost of the weapon.
In other words - do not try to keep the mancount constant. Keep strength of the army constant (lets say rate of fire in this case) and then compare costs. Or keep costs constant and compare strenght.
More archer are better because you can split them into smaller groups.
I can also see armies trying out equipping only the best of their archers with this device and keeping them mixed with regular troops. Kinda like giving the best rifle to the marksman in a unit.
@@Hirosjimma Yea but marksman will not complicate your logistic since they carry the same loadout. This one require his own ammo carrier more like LMG squad instead marksman.
you still need the same amount of archers, they shoot faster but it's also more tiring so they can't sustain the same volume of arrows as conventional archers over a extended time
@@yulusleonard985 mmh but less cost can be better to so what if you trakte more il artchers that you need to compansate and youse the rest fr logistics
Seems like ambushes are the best use for this. 20 guys could take out a small convoy jn seconds without any danger to themselves.
Basically most suggestions people come up with...its a weapon that elite units would use.
Good point! 👍
Imagine blitzkrieg tactics in the medieval times... An army is marching to a battlefield a few days away. The enemy scouted and saw the route they were taken. That battlefield is way down the road, they don't need to put all their armour on yet.
Suddenly 30 archers pop up on either side and unload 5-6 shots in a mere couple of seconds, and then they all just fall back and take off. No casualties. No danger. They head for their horses and GTFO. And if the enemy is stupid, maybe they'll fall for it again. Or cavalry using a warbow with one of these attached. Just have to pump off their shots as they run by the front of the enemy lines.
Can't guarantee it would work or work 100% of the time, but it could have been really effective against units wearing weaker armour, perhaps?
I'm no expert on this stuff, these are just the ideas I could see potentially working
Beat me to it. Yes, absolutely
Was just about to say this :)
I think they would have been extremely useful in while defending a castle because an archer would be able to pop up and give a short burst of arrows and pop down, or for mounted archers who had less range anyway
There's no need to be stuck on a longbow, it's not like England was the only country in the world in medieval ages. Put it on for example horse archers bows, expand a magazine a bit, and you have a modern day drive by. A hundred horse archers releasing a thousand arrows in ~15 seconds and then riding away calmly reloading would definitely be a thing.
Tod makes an excellent point: there are so many 'specialty' weapons before and during the gunpowder age, that seem like an incredible invention but in reality had very little impact, except to those specific few circumstances in which they were deployed. This does seem like one of them. Bravo for speaking your mind and following historic logic and evidence.
This invention makes already an impact today and could start a renaissance of bows as a weapon. Let's face it: The main reason why fire guns are so powerful is the cadence and Europe conquered America within no time. Small pocks helped as well, but bows had no chance against firearms. With similar shot cadence between natives and conquers the present would probably look different.
Love the intro: Hi its Tod at Tod's workshop and Tod Cutler here.
I love it too! I think that every time I hear it, it's so delightfully repetitive, yet somehow entirely professional.
Anybody catch his name?
@@Colonel_Overkill I think it's something like Cod? Dunno, I'll have to rewind
He says that but I’ve yet to see both Tods in one video! Wondering maybe Tod Cutler is the cameraman
That's because Tod is his stage name, whilst Tod is his real name.
Disclaimer: I have little knowledge about medieval warfare/combat and I'm sure at least 80% of what I "know" is from movies and TV-series... But, with that said:
My instinctive thought when I first saw this device wasn't large scale warfare. Mostly I wasn't so sure a short burst of a lot of arrows were worse than a long, ongoing "bombardment". Because, as you say, amount of arrows you can have and how tired you will get by shooting...
But what struck me was smaller units. Even a small ambushing unit of five people where, say, two had these devices and three lay in hiding closer to the target. Send of ten arrows quickly (giving the target a small time to react) and then the rest attack the survivors (while the archers swap weapons and join in).
Basically: a situation where the combat will be short and intense and an initial volley of arrows gives an advantage (or is enough of a deterrent for attackers to stay away, of course).
@@jameschalkwig787 There are two major problems with your plan. 1. You still have to pay the peasants to be archers, so your treasury is still a limiting factor (IIRC part of why there were so many archers in the English army boils down to they were cheaper to employ than more heavily armed troops). 2. Medieval populations were tied to the land. Not just politically and legally, but practically. 99% of the population were farmers because they had to be to feed themselves. Take too many of those peasants into the field (and away from their farms) and you will have mass starvation.
I can imagine it as a scaled up, crank operated, crew served defensive weapon- the medieval equivalent of a heavy machine gun. You could have two men working a crank, two loading, maybe even two steering and aiming. Imagine a large number of such weapons mounted around a castle, each capable of firing 20-30 arrows per minute, continually loaded.
One of the things that keeps coming to me when I see the draw assist versions is that one of the more challenging aspects of the use of recurve bows is that the draw effort is front loaded -- it's much harder to draw the first few inches than the last several.
If a device like this were mounted on a recurved bow with draw assist, and given to horse archers, I imagine their efficacy as light skirmishers would be dramatically improved -- and they could be trained to competence far more quickly.
Small squads of horse mounted archers riding in and out of enemy range could play merry havoc on assembled formations, break charges and such. But that's not where such squads would shine the most. Todd in this video mentions logistic concerns, and as anyone who has ever thought more than passingly can tell you, "an army fights on it's stomachs". The logistics chain is a critical component for any army -- and that's where supposed Legolas Horse Skirmishers would truly shine: raiding the enemy's supply caravans. Short, brief confrontations while ducking in and out of range or concealment, with plenty of time to rest one's arms between engagements. A squad of twenty horsemen would have the ambushing/skirmishing power of a hundred -- if not slightly more as they'd be able to use higher poundage recurved bows thanks to the draw assist, meaning their effective range from horseback would be that much greater.
Only an incredibly rich military would use these for "common/standing infantry", I feel -- ones that would be able to afford logistics aids like stripper clips for their Legolas bolts, that might make carrying more bolts per trip easier. I'd also imagine that they might not fire consistently; the infantry role of the Legolas would involve more volley fire than continuous -- one of the commonly noted benefits of this device is the ability to *hold* a drawn arrow for prolonged periods without strain. So while it *could* counter charges with rapid shots, I imagine that would mostly be a deterrent capability for common foot archer units, rather than a relied upon feature. Instead, the ability to loose well aimed and timed volleys might be focused on in medieval officer doctrine. This might gain the Legolas foot the same reputation the crossbow had: as a mercenary's weapon. High priced mercenary units would certainly make much more use of such a weapon.
Is the assisted draw mechanism dead in the water? In your previous video on the topic you had mentioned that there were some interesting solutions presented in the comments and that one in particular was a forerunner.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. If one of the problems of high-poundage bows with a SIL is getting the archer tired quicker, wouldn't the assisted draw solve some of that problem?
For me yes, as I have run out of time, but the film is coming.....
@@tods_workshop For stationary weaponry, seems a mechanism that allows two or three bows for assist could create a fast reloading war bow or crossbow. No way it'd be deployed on the open field, but from a fixed position it could be devastating. My guess would be three metal bows for the layered, shorter draw reverse assist with larger wooden bow for the release.
@@tods_workshop Hi Tod, fine work as always! Did you mean yes the assisted draw mechanism is not feasible or that it would solve some of the problem? I wasn't sure which way to read your comment.
@@haraedon It is feasible, but I just don't have the time to pursue it
Gotta say that this whole discussion made me think of the Battle of Plevna, between the Russians and he Ottomans, and where the Ottoman surprised the world by holding a much larger force at bay thanks to entrenched troops equipped with repeating rifles. The repeating rifles at that time were of lower power than the standard military rifles, ammunition supply was seen as a major concern against the adoption of such a weapon before the battle, but nonetheless, the Ottoman resistance showed the world the merits of a high volume of fire. Anyway, the context was very different compared to medieval times, so not sure how it can truly compare...
I think it gets right at Tod's point about the IL being a specialist weapon, not general issue. Maybe 1 in 10 Turkish soldiers at Plevna had a lever action (one company per battalion or so). Everyone else had a standard single shot. That one company of lever actions was on standby for most of the battle, then popped up once the Russian troops got close enough to hit.
Same use case for an IL at a siege. Most troops have a standard longbow (or crossbow, whichever). A few have IL. When the besiegers get close enough for the IL to reach is when the regular bowmen step down and the IL step up.
I've got to say 4 different Tubers from 4 different locations with 4 different opinions and not slagging each other off for each opinion etc makes a refreshing change, Dare i say it? its nice to see an Adult conversation on a subject.
i think the Instant Legolas would make a good City watch/Policing applications, as its mere appearance and knowledge that it can shoot quickly would be more of a deterrent than say a single shot crossbow. Gangs/Thieves would certainly think twice knowing that their chance of being shot has been increased 5 fold. Just a thought.
In as much any conversation about counterfactual history involving super-bows can be called adult.
Being able to shoot a couple arrows before enemies are on you instead of just one would indeed make a difference.
I think this thing would have one very specific but valuable role. Being used by a small number of specially trained archers in a defensive position on low-powered bows to provide insane amounts of saturation fire.
-defensive means they're reasonably safe from counter fire
-defensive means they can just be standing next to containers full of bolts
-defensive means that they can just hand empty bows to some boy who does the reloading and hands back another full one
-archers have to be specially trained for all the reasons you listed
-low-powered bows in the 80-90 lbs range so archers can keep up their fire for long periods of time
-saturation fire means they can use low-quality bolts which are quick and cheap to make, possibly just use ones with fire-hardened tips
-BONUS: using bolts means archers on the other side can't just pick them up and use them to shoot back
All this means they wouldn't do much against armored targets, though they may get lucky on those who aren't fully covered
But they would be amazing as instant morale-breakers for poorly equipped troops
If you get hit by one of those poor bolts without armor you'll probably be mildly incapacitated, best case is that it'll hurt like hell. If you get hit by 2 bolts within seconds and can still move, you're leaving posthaste.
If 2 or 3 bowmen with these things focus on a single target for a couple seconds it'd be more than enough to score a few hits. If you have 20 bowmen with these things they can break up entire formations.
I have been following these SIL videos since the beginning, and I love all of them. Thanks for your input and all the cool work you have done Tod! You have a new subscriber!
I agree with your evaluation. On the point of who uses it, it makes logistical and tactical sense: give your best, most complex and expensive tools to your best soldiers. Firstly, you're probably not going to have as many of them to equip all your archers. Secondly, trained archers will make better use of it: they can shoot more accurately, shoot heavier bows and shoot for longer. I made a similar point in a previous video: a bad archer with the repeating mechanism is still a bad archer, only that they will be shooting quicker.
Have you seen Tod using the wooden sights in the first video? This is different for the non archers than the archery forms where you can torque the bow.
Thanks for joining in and it sounds like we are both on the same track.
Wouldn't really need to give this to your BEST soldiers. You can give it to middle of the rank soldiers to bring them up a notch, while your best ones stay as usual. It changes the power dynamic.
@@migueeeelet I think of this as a special forces weapon, because as Tod said it reduces the range and power in order to achieve super high burst rate of fire. The best archers are not just good at shooting longbows faster, but shooting stronger longbows for higher power and range. So the middle of the rank soldiers may just get outranged by top of the line soldiers shooting them from outside the range of the SIL. This weapon is a game changer when sheer rate of fire is key though
- By "giving the Legolas to a peasant" I suspect people meant training up new archers, including youngsters and women, perhaps people are thinking of today's national reserve troops
- The Legolas doesn't fire constantly, short decisive bursts are its forte, more M60 rather than static HMG
- The Legolas is a powerful version of the Chu Ko Nu repeating crossbow, which was weak, inaccurate and was used to control crowds from a height (or pepper someone to death indoors from short distance). Its presence was enough to disperse a crowd, and the Lego can do the same: ROF is so high, there is a chance to wound even someone in full plate, and its certain to wound the knight's destrier, which has a much less sealed armor if any armor at all. The Lego doesn't need to fire to affect the battlefield. Its presence would be enough.
They did have more powerful versions of the Chu Ko Nu that were up-scaled (could be carried and used by one person, but was getting bulky). There were also some that were really big up-scaled versions that couldn't be carried by one person and had to be mounted on a platform and was basically more like light field artillery. This Instant Legolas could definitely fill a similar niche, as it seems to be more similar to the stronger/bigger versions of the Cho Ko Nus but was smaller and more maneuverable.
The Cho Ko Nu was more-or-less obsoleted by the Trebuchet, so it still would have very limited use: either because the defenses would have been smashed by rocks, or starved out. Maybe you could use a smaller garrison, but a smaller garrison would also run out of arrows too fast for it to matter much.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 The Cho Ko Nu performed different functions from the traction trebuchets and each had its separate niche. The smaller CKNs were very niche personal battlefield weapons used in specific situations (shooting at less armored horses/people or defending a fort)
or were personal defense weapons. The larger CKN might be mounted on a platform to be a fast shooting bow or a light field artillery. The traction trebuchet on other hand, was siege equipment/field artillery that threw decent sized projectiles (eg. rocks) that would kill a man even if he was wearing the best 16th century European full plate armor.
@@Intranetusa It's not the traction trebuchets that were the problem: the Song Dynasty had defenses for those, and even had entire killing fields that could use the Cho Ko Nuk, but they did nothing because the Mongols built counterweight trebuchets to smash through the defenses outright. A repeating bow has the same problem: you cannot defend against an enemy you cannot attack. The question then becomes: "would a repeating bow make a siege so expensive that the siege could be broken," and the answer to that is still going to be no in pretty much every case.
@@bubbasbigblast8563 The counterweight trebuchets (CWT) occupied an even more different niche than ChoKoNus (CKN). Comparing the CKN to a CWT is like comparing a pistol to an 120mm artillery. The counterweight trebuchets were larger than the traction trebuchets and could fling projectiles large enough to damage stone and brick fortifications. These CWTs were used to attack the fortifications themselves in addition to sometimes attacking people. The CKNs on the other hand, were primarily used against living targets (people and horses) and were never used against fortifications as that would be useless. The two are for completely different purposes, which is why they were used side by side and didn't replace one another. Look at paintings of the Imijin War for example, when the CKNs were still used alongside bigger forms of artillery (counterweight trebuchets had been used for centuries by that point).
Firstly, love your channel, it’s become one of my go tos. However sir,with my limited knowledge in war fighting, I have to disagree with the instant legolas being a niche weapon (although it should be reserved for professional archers). Reasons being: 1. The magazine does not need to be empty to begin reload, so an archer can keep loading a new arrow with 4 in reserve firing only the first in a sustained fire capacity. 2. Being smaller arrows, IL archers would be able to carry more and each projectile would require less resources. The capability to shoot rapidly in salvos of 5 however is a great force multiplier. The ability to rapid fire would be advantageous in short exposures such as repelling a charge or used in indirect suppression just before friendly melee elements reach a defensive line. Equipped with the IL archers could fire salvos, reload while withdrawing behind a line of melee troops or reload as melee troops leap frog, medieval fire and movement if you will. I think had the IL come into existence in the hands of English professionals, tactics would have changed to employ this weapon to its maximum effect. Although fatiguing if sustained, I believe professionals would have trained to employ it in both a sustained and short rapid rates of fire.
Hi Tod,
Thank you for another great video. There are two aspects I would like you to consider, one of which is completely missing from the discussion so far:
The French - the discussion to date focuses on the question “would the Instant Legolas be used by an English bowman in battle”. Given the high draw weight of a battle bow, I agree it probably isn’t practical. However, I could easily see the French wishing to deploy the weapon. Throughout history it has been seen that once one side deploys a weapon that results in a step change in warfare, the opposition quickly emulates the weapon in an attempt to counter it. An Instant Legolas would have been perceived as a quick means to do this. Further to this argument, is that in medieval times the French would have had the finances for such an expensive weapon. If used strategically against lightly armoured English bowmen, such a weapon could have easily harassed English lines and formations, similar to the way in which soldiers equipped with rifles would skirmish those equipped with muskets in the Napoleon wars. This then all becomes a question of rate of fire, range and accuracy.
Training - there is a great emphasis to date on the training needed to use an Instant Legolas, but training across the board is a significant issue. It should be noted that of the four RUclips presenters discussing this topic, only one of you can use a Battle bow, but all of you are very familiar and practice archery regularly! Training issues were recognised in medieval times as well, with two Kings of England Henry VIII and Charles I passing laws to increase/improve archery practice by the general population. Hence, I don’t feel a lack of training can be used as an argument for saying it would not have been seen on a battlefield.
Best regards,
James
I still think the device can be use in open field battle and a game changer.
1. It can be used in a formation like Spanish Tercio formation. The archers will skirmish around the main body, moving constantly, and if the enemies attack they will withdraw to the main body. The high rate of fire, spears and shields will cover each other weakness greatly.
2. They can be used as defensive shock troops. Peltas and Slingers were used in the same role for a really long period of time before that. They hid behind infantries and bursted out unload as much as they could then fall back. With SIL high rate of fire, it will work wonders, kindda like grape shots from cannons or shotguns effect.
3. Mounted Archers can also be where this device will shine. You can reach the enemy in the shortest amount of time, unleash highest volume of fire they’ve ever seen, fall back and reload safely. Later on, they can freely move around the battlefield giving suppressing fire where they’re needed and the enemy will have no way to catch them.
Edit:
4. Put them on wagons and use them like chariots. They can freely run around the battlefield dishing out high volume of fire to enemies weak points and not afraid to being shot back. You put blades on the wheel and suddenly you have a really deathly machine running around the battlefield wreaking havoc and no real way to stop them. Ammo wont be an issue as it’s a wagon, it can carry a lot. Cavaliers won’t be able to touch it as the blades on the wheels will cut their horse’s legs and shooters on the wagon shoot them to pieces at point blank.
I'm going to start using "peasanty" as an adjective. Well done!
Here to serve
I've gotta say, despite you clearly having the most relevant experience and qualifications to speak on the subject compared to joerg or shad or others, i still think you've reached the entirely wrong conclusions because you've started off with a number of fundamentally flawed premises.
most of your points seem to be pointing out that "super high rapid fire isnt a good idea a lot of the time" which is true, for resupply and arm tiredness reasons like you point out. Even joe gibb's main arguments against it seem to have boiled down to it being a lot of work to fire it so rapidly. But both of you don't seem to acknowledge that you can just... not shoot it so fast. the benefit of the IL is that you CAN shoot it rapidly *when you need to* . which isnt an option with a traditional bow. you dont HAVE to shoot it rapidly.
a group of archers with ILs could shoot at exactly the same rate as a group of archers without the IL if they wanted to. So resupply would not be a problem and neither would fatigue. But then they would ALSO have the option of loosing a huge hail of arrows in a short amount of time if needed. like for example if they were getting charged by cavalry. So none of your criticisms against the idea of rapid fire are actually valid downsides. rapid fire is an option, not a requirement.
This is like saying "fully automatic fire can make you run out of ammo faster than bolt action fire, therefore, bolt action rifles are better than modern assault rifles" and ignoring that modern assault rifles can be fired in semi automatic if you choose to.
you also seem to overlook that the IL's rapid fire doesnt necessarily mean "the same number of men loosing far more arrows per minute". It can also mean "the same number of arrows loosed per minute, but requiring far fewer men". if you can have the same amount of firepower from a group of 5 guys with ILs as you would from 20 regular archers. well congrats you now have 15 more men at your disposal, ready to fight or work in your army without ANY extra demand on the arrow supply lines. or alternatively you now have to pay 15 fewer salaries to field the same amount of force and can spend that money on whatever you like. Including hiring more fletchers.
this also mitigates any extra expense that the IL would have over a regular bow. sure, making a bow with an IL attached is more expensive than simply making a regular bow. but is making 5 IL-equipped bows and paying 5 salaries more expensive than making 20 regular bows and paying 20 salaries?
While I don't disagree with you, your perspective requires the assumption that the IL archers are thoroughly trained on the IL platform. Nowadays militaries have centralized departments that arm, train, and supply standing armies of professional soldiers. An army organized like this could conceivably adopt the IL platform as a standard weapon system, and deploy it as you've suggested. However, medieval militaries weren't generally organized like this. I think elite units, or professional mercenary groups could certainly standardize on the IL and deploy it as you've suggested. Just like you couldn't give some random guys M4s and send them out into a warzone and expect them to survive--much less be effective--you would need the training and logistics to support every soldier who had one of these.
I Agree. additionaly, Joe didn´t try to use it till absolute exhaustion, surely it´s more exhausting, but the limit is untested/unknown yet. The upper limit of the endurance or the IL-archers may have sufficed to the point of becoming decisive. 2nd, the IL is more expensive cause of double the labor and material, but half of it is a longbow, which you had to build anyway... And the mechanism can always be separated from the longbow, for using the longbow alone, in case the IL were too complicated for some sort of archers.
Shooting fast when you need *is* an option with a conventional bow & was used historically, though perhaps not with English bows. Speed-shooting techniques of holding arrows in the bow hand or drawing hand are even kind of like a magazine bow in that they require a bit of preparation. Whether you're speed shooting with a magazine bow or short composite, however, you need a lighter draw weight. With a conventional bow you at least have the option of drawing your full-power infantry bow short for speed shooting; that's not available with a magazine bow. So that would be the big issue with using magazine bows to speed shoot when needed: they have to be lower draw weight or they couldn't be shot much faster. In the last video, Joe Gibbs shot the 120lb magazine bow only a little faster than he previously shot a 160lb bow. Even assuming whatever caused that could get worked out, fundamentally shooting faster uses more energy in a shorter period of time. There's no evidence whatsoever that 5 archers with magazine bows could provide the same "firepower" as 20 archers with conventional bows. Gibbs shot about an arrow every 4.67 seconds with the 160lb bow & an arrow every 1.6 seconds with the magazine bow, so that's 3x speed at best & roughly 1.75x the power, considering the draw-weight difference. You could equip archers with full-power magazine bows, but they couldn't shoot them all that fast even in bursts. This might be a moderate advantage, but not a huge one. Finally, note that the style of military archery that endured the longest was the Manchu one, which emphasized accuracy with heavy arrows rather than speed shooting.
@@potNuts but you allso forget that over time anybody will konw about it and could handle it atlest once therefore people would konw how it works and the popularity would rise.
I would love to see you make a leg powered version, where the archer lay on their back and use a overpowered bow to shot.
Have someone aim the thing while a dude uses his legs to rapid fire... Genius! Perfect for a defensive tower
I can see this being used as the archery equivalent to a heavy cavalry charge. It would be great in cases of ambush, flanking, softening the enemies line immediately before an infantry charge or even to break up an incoming calvary/infantry charge before it hits your lines.
I respect your ability to talk about different subjects, encourage discourse and the exchange of ideas, and craft a narrative. Well done.
One of the recurring themes I hear you mention is that historical peoples were smart. We consistently underestimate their ability to problem solve and innovate. We look at snapshots and make judgments forgetting that people will observe what works and what does not work, then innovate and change to try and optimize weapons/armor/tactics. You see this clearly in the evolution of weapons and armament. As armor becomes more substantial the weapons change and adapt to be more effective. And it works in both directions.
Thanks. I remover as a kid the phrase”arms race” coming onto my vocabulary (teenager in the 80’s) and my surprise later on when I r was aliased history was all about an arms race too
IMO before I watch the video, I think they would be used in a siege defense. I imagine the cost and time to produce one in Medieval times would have them be to costly to field as a field weapon. But I can imagine these used in towers and walls. Where you can have 3 to 5 guys have the force projection of 20. I can imagine have a team of trained Man at arms to shoot the bows with two page boy trainees each loading a spare. I can see lords spending the expense to have some for defense of his keep or castle. You will get more range shooting from a wall so you dont need to use a war long bow, but some hunting bows. (after watching I think we are on the same wavelength.)
If you tried to deploy this on a field I can see needing, One trained archer and 2 to 3 support for each guy with one. I think they would not use long bows, but hunting bows at 50lbs and use them as rapid fire. This could only be an elite weapon given to trained man at arms with squires and page boys. I imagine you might use tactic's like the riflemen lines in the field. the man at arms using the bows and the squires and pages would load and fire and they would have long pikes or spears the could grab if they are advanced upon. While the send the youngest boys to the rear with the spent bows so they dont get stolen or broken in close combat.
For single use, maybe there is a way to make a magazine system that makes loading faster that could have still been made with the period materials. Imagine an archer with and attendant that was carrying like 30 magazines with 5 or more arrows each.
It would require an evolution in tactics and how the military functions to make use of it. So it would no longer really feel like medieval warfare but would start looking like early renaissance gunpowder warfare.
Also I can imagine maybe scaling them up like the war hammer elvish repeating bows. Imagine a ballista like war machine with 5 of these in a row that fires them all at once. At least these prove the repeating bow in fantasy games is a real thing.
I'm thinking they may be most effective in campsite raids and guerilla warfare.
but in siege shooting volleys fast is less important as time is the only thing you have in abundance. sieges were mostly about starving your enemy out.
Also it'S important to note that there were many sieges but most get resolved fast. george carlin had an interessting segment in an episode of 'hardcore history'
I can see a role for them in offensive siege warfare too.
An often critical point is when you raise the siege ladders and the first troops climb up. They are very vulnerable to retaliation. If a company of SIL-equipped specialists laid down covering fire as the ladders were raised and the troops climbed up, that could provide a key advantage in storming the walls.
Also urban warfare, with its often shorter distances.
I shot my 125lb Warbow without a device almost as fast as Joe Gibbs with the instant legolas. The difference is the SIL's reload is slower because there is a spring blocking the reload chamber effectively slowing down the reload. Belt fed or box magazines are too ahead of its time. I am not that skilled of an archer, I simply used wider gaps and shot on the opposite side like Shadiversity or Lars. Currently doing more experiments with this technique to see if I can improve my fire rate and accuracy, since I am fairly new to this technique with a warbow.
Hi Tod I know you already saw my video but I was hoping people could see it, to see the fast rate of fire of a 125lb warbow without an instant legolas. I think this device is great for an untrained archer, but the average archer can shoot similar speed when you factor the reload of the SIL.
Yes there are various speed shooting techniques used by the Mongols and other nomads that make the instant legolas unnecessary for skilled archers
Do Mongols shoot heavy bows too
Yes mongols used heavy and light bows
The Slavic draw was used historically to shoot fast and it has the same fire rate as the instant legolas if not higher due to simpler reload...trust me I'm Russian
It has nothing to do with if your Russian or not. Do you study ancient history
This wouldn’t be a fantastic war weapon due to the physical limitations on drawing the bow. This is however a fantastic guard weapon, for watchtowers battlements or crowd control, it’s a SMG of the bow world
In medieval times men were built like Hobbits ... They would have no problem pulling a heavy war-bow. Many had been shooting arrows since childhood.
I see this as an ambush weapon used by a force of under 50 men. They would also have hand fighting weapons like axes or swords.
Moebius it’s not an issue of strength, but endurance. If an army runs for a like to engage the enemy they will be tired (that’s not to say useless but weakened which puts you at a disadvantage), that’s why horses were used, and marches developed.
This weapons main advantage is its burst potential, I doubt it would have much impact on shots per hour or per day. So it would be adopted in situations where you require the burst of arrows, or where you need a quick follow up as an option (this would be desired supporting choke points)
That's what the Chinese used the repeating crossbow for. Low power per shot, high rate of fire.
Your point about logistics makes sense. When single shot rifle started to evolve into magazine-fed rifles, people in charge were reluctant to equip every soldier with one at first. They feared the soldiers would waste too much ammo too quickly. This is why some early repeating rifles have a magazine cutoff, a switch that turned them into a single shot rifle until shooting faster was absolutely necessary.
They later realized the added firepower was worth the cost, but it was long into the age of mass production.
I love the idea that it would be used as a instant moment/short objective tool. For example, you add the instant legolas to your bow for and ambush then remove it and join the other archers to continue your support. Or even if, per say, someone "WAS" to use it in open warfare, it would be something you would supply to fewer archers like the difference between short and long bowmen. It's a very interesting tool and would probably be for fancy honestly. But one that could be used to turn tides when used properly. :3 Great work pointing out the flaws and mixing in idea's like that. Keep up the great work and have a good day!~
It being more expensive than a crossbow is enough to make it infeasible for peasant weapon. Ambushes seems to be a good application - shoot a tonne of arrows quickly at marching army and run away before they figure out what just happened. And the sheer volume of fire might be enough to maybe rout some peasant soldiers, who knows.
👍
Great point, guess couple dozens soldiers in good position could make a hell for marching army.
It would look like you get attacked by at least few hundreds.
It would definitely create a illusion of 100 man shooting arrows where in reality it would be just few archers shooting instant legolas xD
or make it be turret two man crew in wagon doing burst hit and run on infantry like MG on truck today.
More expensive than a simple crossbow at least, not more expensive than all crossbows
to me it would have had two uses .
1. Repeling charges or brake thoughts at cassles . The walls hight would nageat some of the longbows adavtages in range and being able to stop a wave before it gained momentum is key to stopping a brake through .
2. Hit and run warfare . As the enmay trupes are marching or camping . 20 or so of your men let loose a full clip and then ride off before the servicers can react . This would have a strong demoralizing affect to the posting army . And was used by the kelts agenst the Romens to wipe out a fullarmy on the march.
That red squiggly line under words means something......................
it would have been interesting to see a large version of this made for ballista at the time since you could crank back and repeat fire with a set ready to reload similar to how gatling guns worked much later on except you're hurling massive bolts. no idea if it could deal with that kind of stress and strain though even with a big redesign.
It's ridiculous you have to put that disclaimer in the beginning--"Just because we have different opinions does not mean we are enemies."
This is one of the many reasons I love your channel and theirs.
I definitely like your viewpoint on what the instant legolas might have been used for. I apologize if this was mentioned already but logistics might have been easier with this due to decreased size of ammunition+lighter payloads=better logistics. Great educational video, it's nice to see a different perspective and I love watching you, Shad, and Jorg show us it's features, lol.
I would say its a peasant-KILLING device. A peasant rebellion with a bunch of unarmored or lightly armored men with pitchforks and spears could be put down by a terrifying volume of fire.
There is no need for this to fight peasants tho. It's absoluty enough to have normal bows.
Based on all your arguments my intuition is that it would actually have had more chances of being adopted not as a military weapon but a hunting one.
A deer doesn't wear armour, the ability to keep the bow drawn for a bit and have accurate sights is a real bonus for hunting, but the real advantage the SIL has over a hunting crossbow it that in case where you miss your first shot and scare away or just injure the animal, you have this super-fast second, and maybe third shot. No need for a larger magazine though.
Or you are hunting dangerous game and you need a backup shot
@@mingyi456 "oh shit that buck is charging this way!"
There would be hunting versions 100% but I do need to say that warbows are not meant for going through armor. They are made to hurt low grade armor wearers and annoy highly armored opponents.
Todd, I agree with some of the points you made, and disagree with others. I fully agree that equipping a peasant army with these is nigh-on useless. For exactly the reasons that you said. It's complicated by comparison, it's expensive, it'd have to be too light of a draw weight to work effectively. It needs a professional to use properly. That being said I think you're assuming that they would always shoot at maximum, when I don't really see the need to. Yes of course more arrows is always better, but it's also, like you said, much more tiring. So, why not simply shoot at a restrained pace, it would probably still be a faster pace than normal just because you don't have to worry about nocking arrows every time. Then when the need arises, facing down a charge for instance, open it up and shoot for speed. Looking to modern weapons, just because it's got a 30 round mag and can shoot 900 rounds per minute definitely doesn't mean that's what it does all the time.
Also, with the concept of the speed loader, you could do what they sometimes did with crossbows and have teams. One shooter and one loader, maybe one to fetch arrows from the wagons. Although, I do agree, the need for arrows would be extreme. (On a related note, we know the English took roughly a million arrows to Agincourt, but do we know if they shot them all? I confess I'm not much of a historian.)
I think the Instant Legolas takes a longbow and gives it more versatility in its use. More cost certainly, but I can't think of a situation off the top of my head where you would choose a longbow and the Instant Legolas couldn't also do the job.
The use of teams for reloading was one of the first things I thought of when I first saw this thing.
A situation where you would choose a longbow over Instant Legolas: archers exchanging missile volleys. Regular longbows would have a much greater range, so they could shoot while keeping out of range of the other side with the weaker bows.
@@flamingas would they though? if it's a similar draw strength being shot by a professional, wouldn't range be more or less the same?
@@lolo2221 Yeah, but as noted by Tod in these last videos, you couldn't use Instant Legolas at the same draw weight as a normal war bow and keep the high firing rate.
@@flamingas Well that's sorta my point, you don't have to keep the high firing rate. Of course it's good to have and would make a serious difference some times, but you can just shoot the bow at the normal relaxed pace without a penalty.
I agree with Tod completely.
Short bursts of use for me:
Only shoot a magazine empty and then withdraw from engagement - no logistical problems.
Tactical:
Give these to 25 all the way up to a maximum of 100 well trained soldiers and make a specialised raiding group. Somekind of highly mobile "special ops" group, that would be very well trained and ready for various special tasks on short notice through their training, when for example you need to get a break from enemy charge, are starting your own charge or want to break a stalemate etc. Accomplished through harassing enemy supply lines, ambushing enemy troops, making fierce short fake attacks on the flanks and then withdrawing from engagement to cause confusion on enemy ranks. Smoke and mirrors are one of the most effective battle tactics after all.
Why not even give them to king's guards for last resort defence against charging enemy or even indoor use if defending a fortress or such.
You wouldn't have needed a big group with these weapons. It would've only done harm to your overall army strength for reasons Tod explained in the video.
Great stuff as usual Todd. I would like to make a small general criticism of the whole idea of approaching the ammo supply issue from the standpoint of 'Well, if I want to fire this thing for an hour, I need X amount of arrows'.
Just like in contemporary times, it wouldn't work like that. Take the minigun, which is normally mounted on helicopters. With that rate of fire, if you're calculating firing in terms of minutes you'd need so many bullets you'd never get the helicopter off the ground. But they are still used. Why? Because the advantage of a high rate of fire is not to fire 5 times as many bullets over the span of an hour but to fire 5 times as many over the span of 2 seconds when you really need it - passing a target at high speed with a narrow window of opportunity to hit anything.
In the medieval context, these narrow windows of opportunity would also exist - a charge you need to repel, blokes making a go at scaling the walls, a quick barrage before your own surprise charge, and so on. This is where rate of fire comes into play. I very much doubt that medieval battles played out with a relatively constant stream of arrows until the archers ran out. Rather, there would be positioning, shooting at a vulnerability, withdrawals, charges and counter-charges, lulls with no much of anything happening etc. All of these would increase the effect of a ability to deploy a weapon with a high rate of fire.
Not saying logistics is irrelevant, just that I think it would be a minor consideration given how the weapon would be probably be used.
Cheers!
If I had been a medieval lord, I would have cavalry equipped with this bow. A quick hit and run, firing multiple arrows at the enemy line, withdrawing, reloading, repeating.
And I would turn it into a crew operated field artillery type weapon for use by the infantry against formations.
Lol this is two piece weapon you cant use this while mounted .
The best historical horse archers could probably already shoot as fast as person can with this, using speed-shooting techniques. Cavalry bows tended to be around 75% of the draw weight of infantry bows, which made them easier to shoot swiftly. So you'd reinvent horse archery, but throw in a more expensive contraption? It could work, but seems a bit awkward. For whatever reason, horse archery only saw limited use in medieval Europe.
The reason that horse archery saw limited use in medieval europe is that the terrain and style of warfare did not really allow for it to be such a useful tactic. It's why the mongols got hindered once they started to reach closer to central Europe, and if they hadn't pulled back due to the death of their leader they would likely have switched tactics and army composition to be able to invade further with success.
@@duchessskye4072 Horse archery ain't great for taking castles, sure. But it seems well-suited to skirmishing & raiding, as was widely practiced in medieval Europe. Mounted crossbowers who shot from the saddle saw more action than most folks realize (see Paul Dolnstein's sketchbook, for example), & there were some mounted archers who shot from the saddle too, but lance & sword still seem more common cavalry weapons overall, including for skirmishing & raiding. A bit curious, but then weapon choice is in part cultural.
@@benjaminabbott4705 yes, there's some mounted skirmishing in europe too. But not to such a large scale as the mongols used, because the tactics the mongols used with their numbers of horse archers wouldn't really work in the not-so-flat or open terrains of most of Europe. Without a lot of room to manuever, large numbers of horse archers lose their effectiveness.
Skirmishing in smaller numbers still works, but you cannot base armies around that
I'm just loving how these colabotaions goes on in such a lovely way! Scientists telling you that you all are doing a great thing with this brain-child of Mr Sprave, others just likeing it, and there's not much flinging of ape poo.
I've been following this from the beginning, and I'm just loving this so much!
Keep on going, and never say you're sorry for having a different opinion! But, this is RUclips after all, and not everyone understands that you can have a different opinion without becoming an enemy.
Wasn't taught in schools? I remember it being taught... Maybe it's because I'm old and my mind is going gaga! :-)
All the best to all of you from Sweden.
I could imagine the instant Legolas as a stationary defensive weapon:
You take an especially heavy, lets say 350 pound Longbow, and mount a heavy instant legolas fix to it. Then you attach that to a mount. Have the side of the instant legolas device geared in the same fashion the gearing for windmills worked in the middle ages-> have small poles sticking out of its side in constant intervals. Then on the mount have a revolving gear, wich intersects with the poles and rotates when you push or pull the instant legolas. Then have a very large gear with a handle on the mount, connected with the small gear, but rotated 90°. In front of that, a wooden shield is mounted. The whole mount sits on a platform with a 2 - 3m long lever attatched to it. So the guy turning the handle can stand on the platform behind the shield. Another guy is manning the lever, and is turning the whole thing horizontaly. Another guy stands behind the guy who is turning the handle, and rotates the whole assembly vertically, and he is feeding in new arrows.
The whole thing is meant as a static defensive weapon ontop of walls or other emplacements.
finally someone think it can be stationary same as me lol my version is fix place bipod leg that can free rotate up down and sideways to aim around, turn it to shoot like crossbow but use whole body to pull the string and have another guy doing reload arrow.
If you turn the longbow so it is set vertical instead of horizontal (or replacing it with a torsion box), you're pretty much described a Polybolos
Such things did in fact exist. It was evolution of the Roman Ballista. Repeating cartridge crossbows and more especially pepper box ballista (that fired smaller arrow packs) as well as repeating cartridge fed ballista all existed. The reason being it was easier to build a cartridge system into a fixed position weapon vs something rather small and finely constructed as the instant legolas. I would compare the rarity of something like the instant legolas would fit into the same vein as the use of complex and fancy wheel-locks in the early firearm era where custom wheel-locks were finely crafted and expensive arms.
Even more so the speed of the legolas is about the same as the speed of your skilled Mongol Horse Archer who could fire just as quickly by using their lighter horse bows. Honestly the Long Bow is unique in the world of bows to begin with and it's heavy draw was as well. Heavy draw crossbows existed but by far most war bows were lighter draw.
A 35O pound longbow? XD might as well put a magazine on a ballista
since the mechanism takes care of the (re)loading the projectiles I could imagine that bow greater poundage could still be operated manually. One person could use both hands in combination with legs to pull the bow in "rowing" stance. That way you could get strength and speed from single device.
I supect you would have quite a change in siege or rather the defence of castles.
On the psychological level, I totally agree with your statement that if a thing is new and fun, people are going to want it - but if its capable on top of that, it would have shurely been widely adopted.
I think its great fun to hypothesise on matters like this.
Great video, as always.
And shout out to Joerg for his ingenious invention!
Agreed! These could be deployed as medieval highly trained SF contingents attached to the army, so they could be inserted in special situations. As reserves, as flankers, or defending against flankers, attacking hotspots on an already established battlefield, turning or collapsing formations. As far as reloading, they could work in groups alternating shooting/reloading, as well as being supported by a contingent of regular archers that would bring the pain while the SIL reloaded. They would definitely be most effective when working in a group of highly trained specialists with a varied skill set. It may be that all or part of the unit are SIL operators, or that the SIL would just be another tool in their toolbox and they would adjust these tools to fit the problem they are anticipating or dealing with.
Great video!
Cheers
11:25 The reload problem could be alleviated by having multiple squads of instant legolas archers taking turns firing. When one group needs to reload, another group starts firing, rinse and repeat. Or like you mentioned near the end of the video, have them be replaced by normal archers while they reload.
Sorry I know it's been years. But I completely agree with you on volley formations. In the hands of men-at-arms. I'd say 100-50 men formations in 4 ranks would work best. As for resupplying them. Horse runners. That's my idea for field battles.
they could also fire by section. one section shoots and the other reloads.
How about a "You've got Mail" T-Shirt
Maille
@@kuesdav KETTENHEMD
@@OperationDarkside ? Sorry, no idea what that means?
@@kuesdav It's the german word for Chain Mail. The capital letters were intended as a joke. I didn't get the meaning of your previous comment. I assumed it was french? Therefore I replied with the german equivalent.
@@OperationDarkside That was perfect! Um, sorry I didn't get the joke though, probably should have googled it. Perfect joke gone to waste . Sorry! ;)
Only just stumbled across this video (thanks RUclips algorithm) but you make a lot of good points regarding the device. I could see this being used in defending battlements, you have a line of archers on top of the walls raining arrows on those that get within range at a rapid pace and essentially force a retreat. The enemy would potentially think that you have far more bodies then you actually do. Thanks for the insight into the device and medieval applications.
When I first saw this design I instantly saw it as a tower archer's weapon loosing volley after volley. You are also correct that this would've been a toy of the wealthy as well. Adventure on my friend, Phat
I also believe trained soldiers would have this. A perfect weapon for townguards that patroll streets and need something that can burst out damage in case of an attack. Also perfect for guards that protect a carriage on a open forest road. You expect thieves and robbers and not military longbowmen to attack you.
Most medieval town guards would probably have done basically nothing for most of their careers except yell at drunks and occasionally chase off smugglers. Many were part-time, amateur volunteers motivated by a sense of civic duty and a small financial stipend. Medieval life wasn't a video game- there was arguably a higher risk of violence than in most communities in developed countries today, but for the most part people generally tried to go about their lives peaceably.
What about mounted archers? They could definitely enclosed their gap and retreat at the same time while carrying a bags of arrows. The Saracens did this tactics against the Crusaders while mounted
Good ol Parthian tactics
Just imagine a medieval-age Seal Team 6 equipped with these things.
Dear god I love this invention's collaboration videos so much, how am I not already subbed to you Tod?
It is good to see that in 2020 some people can have different opinions and still have a conversation
I reckon this could have amazing uses and seizures especially having a behind a wall and tricking your enemy into thinking of for superior numbers
Until they know about the device... rumors spread fast. But it would make a HUGE difference for one or two times. After that there would be a fear of few years, a fear of not understood technology AKA black magic.
@@crossbowboltlaunchers2456 Aussie Militias in New Guinea convinced the Japanese of higher numbers woth rate of fire for the whole campain.
with shorter arrows, you can decrease cost per arrow, due to the reduction in scarcity of materials and man hours to make. With less feathers, same again. and shorter arrows also means that you can carry more arrows in the same container and beast of burden. Lets be generous and call it a 1/4 reduction in cost per shot. in terms of lagistics.
The easiest way to service these bows, would be arrow bundles tied up with twine. Put one bundle under each arm, and one boy can provide in one trip enough arrows for dozens of archers. They only need 5 per volley, with enough on hand to reload a few times. There best battlefield use would be for breaking charges. Hitting them with a full fire volley would make it much easier to repel them.
Problem arises when the arrows made in a village where 14 27.1 mm inches makes an ell need to fit in a magazine made in a village where 12 24.9 mm inches makes a foot, though.
@@JanoTuotanto You send out a model arrow an tell people to make them just like that or your not getting paid, arrows where as it was standardized.
The magazine limits the size of the arrow, the arrow heads, and arrow weight. Combined with the weaker poundage of the bow, I doubt stopping power and penetration would be as good as a normal bow with higher poundage, and bigger heavier arrows. Penetrating through mail+padded armour might not be all that easy especially at longer ranges.
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 it's basically firing super large bolts. anything less than a knite in full plate and gamberson is going to be susceptible to the fire of these things when in range.
@@abrr2000What would be a realistic poundage for a bow employed with the IL? Taking that into account together with the smaller and lighter projectiles(because they're small and need to fit in the magazine), and the distance to the target. Would penetration against mail+padded armour, or a brigandine be adequate? Kinetic energy, projectile mass, sectional density, arrow head design, etc, matters. A normal warbow with potentially higher poundage(than a bow with the IL), with normal longer heavier arrows(than the bolts shot from the IL) would penetrate more, and do more damage after penetration. Where the IL would shine isn't in stopping power or penetration, but volume of shot. Almost like an MLRS, only that its a bow. Also, effectiveness would only be in closer range. Longer heavier arrows with better sectional density and ballistic coefficient, shot from a powerful bow would have better range, penetration and stopping power.
I see this going two ways, a lighter version for light cavalry: hit and run, flanking, maybe some policing in the country side,... and a heavier version mainly for use in cities: guarding, defending, crowd control,...
I wonder if on horse back this thing makes any sense though, I think a Mongol horse archer would beat it easily.
I'd imagine it might be difficult to reload on horseback since while riding youre being bounced around by the horse
@@GAMA830 It's already hard to reload a traditional bow on horseback, and assuming you devleop a clip to reload these, it'd be far easier I'd argue, compared to traditional horseback archery. Even if you're getting bounced around, I'm not sure it'd be any worse than usual horseback archery.
The rate of fire would probably be similar, it would definitely take a lot less to train someone to shoot on horseback with these things than to train their whole lives learning to rapid fire arrows like the Mongols from a recurve bow
@@SCComega one could argue that it would be easier to reload, being that you basically only have to slide the arrow into a hole, but then again reloading multiple arrows at a time would be slower than a normal bow
@@rikospostmodernlife Sure, but considering you're not worried about sustained fire on horseback, but instead bursts in hit-and-run methodology, it seems like that shouldn't be overly a downside in that particular role.
Good points made! I'd agree that it would most likely have been a limited issued specialist weapons used for very specific applications, like defending in a Siege. Archers would first use longbows as the enemy was still far from the walls, then when they came closer they could perhaps switch to the IL
Great points, Tod. Especially use of the IL in the defense. Especially naval warfare and battlements. That also reduces some of the logistical challenges of having larger amounts of arrows near the archers.
How about stationary guards or castle defense?
Interesting thought!
This is how I've been seeing it used. You can have plenty supplies ready for them, and a few highly-trained people can take-on and halt an entire army, which is what a castle is meant-for; as a force-multiplier.
Thats what I think. You invest in your siege defense tools. So spending money to have like 10 of these made for your keep makes sense.
Maybe, but I see the SIL in the same role as a Bren gun, eg, a light machinegun/squad assault weapon.
So not for a single guard, but definitely as a force multiplier providing overwatch in a protective structure like a watch/outpost tower at a checkpoint or a market town where a lord has an organised crime, rebellious population, covetous neighbouring lords or religious cult problem.
Or maybe horse archers? One ride by hail of arrows, retreat to reload and do it again. Perfect skirmishers?
On an open field I would think range is key.
Doesn't matter how fast / accurate you can shoot if the enemy can just stand out of your range and pick you off, no matter how slowly.
Also complexity is important.
You see it with nerf/dart blasters.
Often people will prefer a simple reliable blaster over a higher capacity, more powerful, more complex one because a jammed blaster is useless.
Raids (chevauchées?), ambushes, anywhere that a smallish professional team of archers could devastate a poorly armoured enemy force with little risk to themselves.
I've mentioned before that I think the SIL favors, for this reason, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and robberies. The strategic effect would be to make poorly controlled territory perhaps a lot more dangerous, and this might lead to a more pronouncedly binary choice between imposing totalitarian control or letting an area fall into chaos.
This leads to the question of why chevauchées & skirmishing didn't involve more mounted archery historically.
Is that more effective then riding in on horseback
I think you nailed it in terms of it being a very specific tool that fills unique niches. It has certain strengths and weaknesses that make it not very effective as a general purpose weapon, but like back then with things like billhooks and Rondel Daggers and warhammers and the things you mentioned, or even today with things like Masterkey shotguns and compact SMGs and flashbang grenades, there are certain weapons built to accomplish very specific tasks.
To me, this thing excels in 2 situations in particular. Either in the hands of raiders/skirmishers/shock troopers, where you send them to a soft enemy target like a lightly guarded enemy camp during a battle, have them blitz the enemy with a ton of arrows in a very short time, then either run away, or drop the SIL and draw their sidearms and get to pillaging. I guess in this role you could also ambush a target in advance of your infantry's arrival, to soften them up.
The other big use I could see is during siege, where reloading is no big deal because you have cover behind the walls.
And I guess they could have been used sort of like how the Genoese Crossbowman used Crossbows, where you have a shooter, a loader, and a guy with a pavise, where you have 2 dudes carrying SILs. and while the shooter is shooting, the loader is reloading the other SIL so when one runs dry, the other is ready to go, as a sort of bonus use for it.
Great video, I like that you have arrived at the same conclusion almost everyone else who have ever tried to make a slow firing weapon, a rapid fire weapon. The Chu Ku Nu ancient chinese repeater crossbow, also had to be reduced drastically in power to shoot fast, it was very weak. When people tried to make automatic weapons with firearms, they went from rifle rounds to pistol rounds very quickly too. So doing a rapid fire bow, it only makes sense that the draw weight would be similarly reduced, just like every other system on this principle.
I really like this sword and bow community!
I think there's a large middle ground between longbowmen who have been training for years and untrained, undisciplined peasantry that isn't being addressed here.
For starters, you wouldn't see many peasants in medieval armies anyway. It wouldn't have been logical to take away so many farmers from their fields for a lengthy military campaign, because they are of much more value doing the job they were meant for; providing food for your people and armies. And because they are untrained and undisciplined, they aren't reliable soldiers in any situation. So medieval nobles would have gotten their cheap soldiers from elsewhere.
I think a better equivalent for who would have been using the SIL is the average crossbowman or urban militia. These people were middle class workers, typically craftsmen or merchants, who were wealthier than peasants, and would have likely been responsible for providing their own arms and armour. In times of war, these workers can afford to be away from their trade because they are not tied to the land and the seasons. They likely would have either been given training enough to use their weapons decently well, or would have practiced using and maintaining their weapons in their own free time. Crossbows could take nearly as long to reload as the SIL, and could only fire once for every 4-5 shots the SIL can fire.
Another excellent comparison can be made with soldiers using flintlock muskets; soldiers with muskets were trained how to maintain their weapons and reload them quickly in battlefield situations, but didn't need to spend several years building up muscle mass to use them. The SIL could perhaps have been even more game-changing in the era of flintlock warfare than it would have been in the Middle Ages, because for every single shot a musket can fire, the SIL could fire 5 (and more accurately at that), and then the SILman could take a knee and reload while his comrade behind him could take over firing.
Have your version had some sort of counter-spring to help with draw? I could not see it on your previous video, one with that archer.
He tried to create one using techniques that would've been available at the time, but couldn't get something that would've been feasible for a 100lb+ war bow. The forces acting on a bow of that power are immense, and it's a tricky engineering problem even with modern materials.
This is one of the most interesting advantages when applied to medieval times, so I would like to hear how that development has gone. Last I knew, Tod said that the fans were going to submit ideas for review/implementation so hopefully we get an update soon on that
@@jonathanolson772 yeah, now I remember.
That film is coming......
@@tods_workshop oh, goodie :)
Cool vid :
_ regarding the fact that the archers get tired, the bow could have been used not by individuals but by teams, where soldiers rotate the roles of shooting and help with reloading. That could be a solution to use it with a high poundage.
_ Also war wagon warfare (like the Hussites used) would be a perfect setting for use of this weapon. A defensive setting, close to the arrow supplies.
Keep up the good work. Cheers.
You are spot-on with your ideas and thoughts about where this could have fit in and how it could have been employed. When you were talking about how this might have been used (or not) in field positions with normal archers, I started thinking about some theories of use for those multi-shot guns, pepperboxes, etc, in that if your archer line is about to be overrun, or there is some sort of delay with arrow supply, a couple of archers trained and armed with the repeater bows could "firehose" the enemy to help cover a tactical retreat or delay the opposition / make them reconsider their attack on the main archer line, etc, giving the supply chain time to refresh, or as mentioned, allow for a tactical retreat or repositioning. Another thing I thought about relating to what you were saying about archers properly trained with these repeaters vs "peasanty" who might fumble with the mechanism and put themselves into bad situations; in 17th century context with the rise of the Trained Bands with muskets, there were several letters and anecdotes from officers preferring bands/companies who were well trained and familiar with (muskets) as a tactical advantage, etc. vs untrained, unprofessional conscript units. But I also try to keep in mind what you mentioned a few times, being the Supply Chain. Manufacturing quality arrows in massive quantities in short order let alone getting them to the Repeaters would certainly be problematic, and I think gets overlooked by us historians and enthusiasts today. Whenever we have a new, rapid-fire mechanism, it's always down to how much ammo you can carry, how likely it is to jam, and when you run out, then what. The argument about being able to stand at your position and pepper an enemy over hours, or, dart around the field and only be able to blast a ton of shots for a few seconds, but then unable to hold the ground, it's been argued for millennia.
Excellent work and thank you for doing it. I used to despise getting into the "What If" arguments, but probably because it always devolved into "argument" instead of a nerdy, fun, thinking exercise. I appreciate your (and everyone else involved) approach.
Agree: I could see these being kept in castles armoury's where a siege assault might be expected. Imagine an assault during the crusades where suddenly fifty men on the walls with 2xSIL each and a reloader stocking the second bow between volleys. Used at the right moment they'd have been devastating in killing/wounding and moral of the attackers.
Nope, you need as many bowmen as you have SILs, because the bowman can't rapid fire more than one magasine at a time before they need a few minutes rest and water.
Which would be done while topping up the magasine.
So it would make more sense if it was equipped to special forces?
or something like dragoons?
This are a very interesting arguments as basically what were happened to early guns period. Even the simplest gun would make a some peasants confused af when troubleshooting needed. The effective solution? Make it a culture & pretty much drill training & traditions. So I can see why Tod would like to prefer a trained soldiers use SIL bows instead of peasants. A super weapon being used by trained sharp shooters for max effectiveness. Just like a SAS squad will get the best weaponry & equipment to do their job most effectively.
But I would argue that what if SIL concept became the normalcy? Just like Tod said about civilians usage. If a middle class people could afford it or produce it themselves then it become a daily normal weapons, just like normal bows & crossbows. SIL could be made from 99% wood too so it's certainly far more cheaper than other metal works products like swords, armors, etc. This is what I think Joerg trying to say about the SIL concept as a very modular tool that could be use & affordable by common folks, even an elderly ones. Just a reminder, Joerg's SIL concept was based off historical "arrow guiding tool" that was used by elderly hunters so they could use a less draw weight bows with shorter/lighter bolts/arrows.
I don't see any way that a weapon which is 3 times more expensive to make than a crossbow could've replaced the ubiquity of the longbow in peasant life. The materials aren't the issue, it's the massive time investment such a complex mechanism requires.
@@furrytrash8399
Just as today, people would want to have one for fun.
An I could imagine a weaker "peasant version" for bird and rabbit hunting.
For the less trained archer, the SIL is still much more accurate. And you have a 2. shot within 2 seconds if needed.
@@espneindanke9172 ok but like, how are these peasants going to afford something that's clearly quite expensive to manufacture? Owning a sports car is fun, but I don't see the average dude driving around in one.
@@furrytrash8399 I don't see this being as expensive as Todd made out. He built one model and pulled out all the stops on it. A medieval one would be refined to a minimalist form which the maker had made hundreds of. There would probably even be some DIY with making you're own strapping and other accessories.
@@furrytrash8399
It's not like they had no spare time back then.
Especially in winter, a lot of work was done inside the house.
For example: In winter tools were made for the next harvest season.
Women often made clothes themselves.
A simple piece of clothing took several weeks.
This "time constraint" of today did not exist back then.
If it took a month or two, it was like that. No problem.
And if any special tools were needed you simply borrowed them.
EDIT: I think, most people would have tried to make one by themselves. And just as Jörg did, they would probably "failed" with the first attempts.
Great to hear your opinon with it!
Would have thought it would be easier to make them a crossbow but havnt ever made either of them so good insight.
Awesome video! I love how you didn't just state your views, but the reasons behind them.
I think the Instant Legolas would be an awesome ambush weapon. If one Robin Hood could fire enough arrows to seem like 4 merry men, it would be easier to pull of a highway heist!
would it be effective as a hit and run tactic for horse archers? also for non-military i think it would be really effective for hunting.