Like Arya in GoT. She can barely pick up a longsword one of the Lannister man dropped but has no problem with practicing archery with massive warbow she just borrowed from a brilliant archer.
JRR Tolkien responding to fans' portrayals of Legolas as effeminate or androgynous: "He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgul, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship " Tolkien, as a soldier himself and a lover of history and antiquity, knew that to draw a heavy bow requires a lot of strength. Note that 'lithe' does not mean 'scrawny'. It implies grace and fitness; the kind of muscles you get from long practice and repetition rather than lifting heavy weights. Bruce Lee was lithe rather than bulky. That kind of strength.
WrappedInGray well considering that strength isn't always dictated by muscle bulk, if you look at power lifters, rock climbers, and other people who lift heavy weights they're rarely bulky like body builders (body builder's bulky muscles are mostly due to constant tearing of the muscle to build mass quickly due to swelling, where a rock climber who (many of whom may carry as much as 200lb on a single finger at times while hanging from a rock) have sinewy muscles. speaking as someone who is an archer (using a 55lb bow), boulderer, martial artist and who's job involves carrying logs and rocks to look at I'm not much (about average build, little on the athletic side) but I've been known to beat people much larger than me in arm wrestling. taking LOTR into account legolas was never actually described in the book, it wasn't until years after the books were written that tolkien described him. I have a collection of sketches in a book on middle earth drawn by tolkin's brother (I believe without checking i know a few of the sketches were done by him) showing all of the major characters, as well as a few minor ones (such as goldberry) the one character that wasn't drawn was legolas as there is no actual discription of him in the book. the blonde hair blue eyed effeminate elf actually came from the animated LOTR movie. (and considering that all other elves had dark hair in the book it's a little odd him being blonde)
crwydryny Exactly. I was actually thinking of climbers whilst writing that, but thought Bruce Lee would be an easier reference point. My point really was that elves are usually portrayed as being skinny-jeans type androgynous emo kids/transvestites but with long flowing hair, and in most fantasy genres women are shown as archers, because there is the false assumption that bows rely less on strength than bladed weapons do when in fact it is completely the other way around, at least when talking about bows intended for war.
***** yeah bruce lee is probably the easiest refrence point, compared to most action stars such as arnold and sly, he was small yet he could do pressups on the tips of two fingers. I think the reason that movies give women bows is because of the idea that a woman shouldn't have to get herself dirty or put herself in harms way, so giving her a range weapon she stays safe away from the bad guy while slaughtering them and still being a badass, where as the big tough men get dirty covered in blood, cut and stabbed and continue fighting on
crwydryny Yup, but that's repeated so often, that people just get the wrong idea. I've shot a 70lb bow, and maybe an 80lb one. Those were a bloody heavy draw, and that's less than half the weight of some medieval bows.
I don't know where the idea came from, but I do know it's prevalent in role playing games. It always bothers me that the 'fighter' types use strength while the 'archer' types use dexterity or agility. If anything, it seems like the reverse would be a better approximation.
+Blake Winter Well, the bow was considered a "feminine" weapon in greek/roman mythology, since it would be "unmanly" to face your enemies from a distance. Its not exactly cowardly (although it might be), but it wouldn't be the proper way to fight.. We can see either "effeminate" or "cunning" characters using it - Paris, son of Priam; Odysseus (although he is also prominent in hand to hand, he is a master in cunning and deceit - he uses the bow when killing his enemies at his house); Apollo, who is not a full grown man but a young, beautiful and immature boy; and Diana. It's also worth considering that maybe this stigma of bows being weak and feminine came from the fact that Greece's enemies user archers a lot - the Persians I think those reasons might give us a clue. And yes, I agree with you. Honestly, I believe that dexterity should always be used to attack, and strength to roll damage. No one uses raw muscle to hit someone.
+La Nausée Yes yes. Then try charging in heavy armour wielding a shield and melee weapon and continuing the struggle through an entire battle lasting for hours and tell me you don't have to be strong while the archer stands around in light clothing loosing arrows. Of course you can be relatively weak and wield a sword. So what? In a clash of melee infantry in closed ranks the strength will count (just think of Greek Phalanx pushing or late Roman era battles. All pushing and shoving, no agility involved at all. AAAAAND we don;t mention cross bows which any kid can handle. Not everyone was a longbowman! A hundred big dude swordsmen in closed ranks vs a hundred gamine little girls similarly armed will be a foregone conclusion. 100 big dudes with crossbows vs 100 emo teenies also with crossbows is relatively even ;-) Fair point?
La Nausée I was questioning your argument about the trope. It is absolutely completely logical for melee fighters to be typically stronger than archers. Are you backing away from that argument? I don't dispute that a tremendous amount of very specific strength is needed to draw a longbow but not all archers (or even more than a fraction in history) were longbowmen, hence their high value. And what is the point of discussing duelling in a debate about whether archers are mis-portrayed as weaker vs melee troops? You are not suggesting archers duel with swordsmen are you? And the "trope" you dismiss is not specific to duellists so, again, how does duelling count? The issue is simply one of what sort of strength attributes would you expect to find in the typical archer vs the typical melee infantry man in the ancient and medieval period. Barring exceptions I would completely expect the frontline infantry man to be both bigger, stronger and fitter than a bowman and do not see any plausible argument against this made here.If you are going to call out a trope, you can do better than this.
La Nausée Fair enough. I still believe a line infantryman in ancient and medieval times would need to be stronger than an archer all things being equal. If only for the need to sustain a violent melee and carry armour and equipment. Do you at least agree with that?
It gets worse in movies when they draw a heavy bow and just hold it for an eternity before releasing.. Hate it when they do that.. it takes maybe a second to draw a bow. Add perhaps another second or two to aim it properly.. no need to draw and hold for 45 seconds..
I have seen in one movie where the 2 sides were meeting to discuss peace offering , they had a line of 10 archers each who drew their bows and held it for the whole scene when they were talking ... it was like 5 minutes. The bowstring would pull out their hands out of their joints at that point probably .
Bill lol yes, good point. "so, we are all agreed then, tea and cakes over at mine in 15m to cellebrate?" *Twangggg.. zzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZIIPPPP... THUD* "fuck. nm"
I was reading an article in a modern hunting magazine and it quoted a 1930s article for bow hunting. The techniques were much different from today. The old article described drawing back and releasing the arrow instantaneously in a fluid continuous motion versus holding at full draw, aiming and then releasing.
I blame Romanticism - exacerbated (irreversibly?) by D&D - for all those wrong common ideas on arms and armors in general. And for bows in particular guns having warped the perception of all ranged weapons.
+angelowl89 I had wondered if anyone else was thinking that. Every time the two got close at a certain angle I would get this excited feeling from imagining a volley of longswords flying through the air
It bothers me when someone in a film gets shot with an arrow, and they just pluck it out (and don't have any issues with the barbed head doing this) and they're instantly better. Just in case anyone doesn't know this (and I wouldn't be surprised with the way films and tv get this wrong so often), if you ever get impaled on anything like that - LEAVE IT IN, go to hospital and let the surgeons remove it. The reason being that the arrow/knife/pointy stick/whatever will be plugging the hole it's just made and stopping blood loss...removing it could cause you to actually bleed to death.
As someone who once did archery as a hobby this has also insanely bothered me. I never had the strength to draw back a long bow, I probably could have if I worked at it more, but it's not something I was ever able to do. The idea that archers could be weak has insanely bothered me for this reason, lol
Seems like the stereotype comes from the fact that swordsmen were on the front lines whilst archers were behind. Therefore people on the front lines were "strong and courageous" while people on the back lines were "cowards", therefore weak. I don't agree with that, but it just seems the like common reasoning.
***** Actually, during the 100 Years War, the English Archers were considered to be so dangerous to the French Troops, that the French threatened to cut off the middle and pointer finger of any English bowman they captured. They were HIGHLY thought of in England. They were quite fond of their archers.
101ultimategaming Which if I remember rightly, lead to the index and middle finger "V" being the English equivalent of flipping the bird. Supposedly archers would wiggle said fingers in the direction of the enemy as a way to say that they could still "feather" them. Leading to the modern middle finger meaning F You
101ultimategaming How you view an archer or crossbowmen is propably on which side of the arrow or bolt you are. I can also imagine that there was a certain type of rivalism between different troops and units, just like there is in modern armies. I don't think that denouncing archers as "cowards" is actually a new thing. When the enemy is raining arrows down on you and you have no way of fighting back I can see how you would curse them for beeing cowards not fighting you men to men.
It's pretty intresting, really. In a lot of ancient accounts, specifically fictional or quasi-fictional (that is to say, embellished or just based on a vague true story) stories and legends of warriors, you can often see a very different attitude towards bows. Bows are a bit different from many other weapons, because they're a "system" more so than a simple extension of your arm used for hitting. And often you see this theme of a warrior proving himself with some feat of the bow. Bows that are tremendously hard to bend, or shots that would be impossible for lesser men than the great warrior in question. For example, in Odyssey, while Odysseus has been away for years, his wife Penelope is troubled by many new suitors, and manages to keep them at bay, so to speak, by telling them that only the man who could repeat his husband's feat of shooting an arrow through twelve axe heads would be a suitable suitor. And as it turns out, Odysseus' bow alone is too mighty for most of them to string properly, much less shoot - whereas Odysseus himself returns and proves his identity by handily completing the feat without much trouble. Bows were very much a lauded, powerful weapon in history. They were something a warrior used to *kill* things (you don't fight with bows, you shoot things with them), and they certainly weren't associated with weakness. Probably because people back then had a much more experience-based outlook on them.
Excellent example of Greeks, in particular (who are usually among those cited as despising long-ranged combat), elevating the bow as manly and powerful.
I've never understood this in game of thrones, when Arya struggles to pick up one of the Lannister soldiers long swords, she's 5"2 and weighs around 8/9 stone surely picking up a long sword should still be easy?
Tolkien's Elves are supposed to be superhuman superhumanly strong, not at all weak or soft. Smooth, yes. But smooth as polished steel is. Although their strength is waning since their first generation, Legolas would have been probably stronger than Aragorn, who was himself of a more mythical bloodline. This is easy to see if one looks at the dialogue between the Orc soldiers after Sam kills the spider. They suspect a mighty, strong warrior. So they think it must have been an Elf, not a mere human. They probably imagine Fingolfin had risen from the grave or something like that.
I believe it's because of the difference between close combat and shooting projectiles. The assumption is that frailer people are worse at close combat, so they'd be better off shooting projectiles from a distance. The problem is that people who don't use bows likely underestimate how hard it is to pull these old warbows back. They're assuming projectiles are easy, like firearms are easy physically.
I'd love to see this kind of scene in a film: In an army camp we see a bunch of really big and burly men, stringing their bows. The cliché warrior princess who has been practising with her toy bow earlier in the film walks up to them, the biggest of the archers challenges her to a shooting contest. She, having practised a lot before, is confident that she can beat him (maybe earlier we saw her during practise in the royal castle's court yard and now we think that she is really good with the bow). The tough archer picks up his huge war bow and shoots an arrow at the target, but misses the bull's eye by a few inches. He is really proud of himself and taunts the princess. Here we have two options for the outcome: Either, the princess picks up her personal bow (which obviously has only a very low poundage), draws and shoots but the shot falls far too short. The other option (which I prefer) is this: She picks up the archer's war bow, expecting it to be just as light as her own practise bow. She nocks an arrow and tries to draw, but she can't even manage to draw it even a few inches. Shamed, she has to forfeit. I know, that's a bit anticlimactic, but it would be so refreshing to see!
wanadeena oh yes, i forgot about asuna, we also have the vampire duo from soul calibur, raphael and his umm, daughter? but i think weve proved our point, however these are the exceptions.
With regards to the modern stereotype of archers being physically weaker or even effeminate, could it have derived from the Western heroic culture going all the way back to the Greeks viewing archers as less "manly" or heroic than those who fought in close quarters with sword or spear? (i.e. the idea that killing from afar with a bow was some how less courageous than meeting an opponent shield to shield) Could more modern writers have reinterpreted this earlier prejudice from one based on moral strength or courage to one based on physical strength? Especially in film, it is much easier to represent the difference between characters visually than through character development requiring lots of dialogue.
And probably Swords would need more dexterity and agility than bows ever would whilst bows would probably require more strength than swords every would...I mean you don't have to be strong to stab someone with a sword, humans are quite frail...
+David Bodor no? Well light weapons are usually finesse or "finesse able". Dex is a coordination stat and firing a bow requires trained hand eye coordination. Once again dex!=agi. Agility is a math stat for computers.
Thomas Paglione Well okay Dexterity is better for bow if you have a Finesse stat but how many stats can you have in one game XD apparently a shitton if you play Pillars of Eternety...
David Bodor PoE is a videogame, and needs all those stats to process everything. In tabletops you can have less intergers and do more with less. Video games have 0, 1 and thats it. All other math has to be done in formulas, that breaks down with just 6 stats, and balance matters in a game were DM/GM cannot say no.
scholagladiatoria Most likely it came from the common perspective in most of Western military culture of the prevalence of melee combat over missile. This view was evident in Ancient Greek, Roman and also Medieval military thinking, with the military elite being all but contemptuous towards missile weapon in general - a proper fighting men (and incidentally their society's elites) wear armor and wield a sword or a polearm, leaving chucking rocks and sticks to lesser men. This is carried forward into our modern way of thinking in the media - the hero, a stereotypical big, tall, strong man always wield a sword, while the sidekick uses the less heroic bow. In the rare occasion where Western military culture used bows to an extensive degree, they acknowledged that military archers in general were brawny hulking beasts - a foreign eyewitness of Richard IV's bowmen described them as 'men with limbs of iron' and 'stronger than any other men', even their swords were 'as long as ours but also broad and heavy'. In cultures where archery was synonymous with military prowess (as is the case with most eastern cultures) drawing a bow was a common way of measuring strength. Chinese military examination from ancient times up to the early 19th century graded recruits based on the strength of the bow they were able to use effectively.
I've heard interesting theories that the bow/sword flip-flop comes from the stereotype that "Guys Smash, Girls Shoot". The idea goes that the audience can deal with a heroine (generally seen as if not actually physically weaker, at least in upper body) being in combat as long as she does not have to be close or physically overpowering someone. So then this swiveled into 'weak people shoot, strong people smash/slash'. Then again, it may have to do with the (relative) ease of firearms having us forget that bows are really hard to use without training. Like, string=trigger.
Exactly! Here's the TV Tropes page for that: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot , if anyone's curious for more. A big part of it is that a heroine doesn't have to smear her makeup if she's shooting from the back rank. It's OK for men to get bruised and bloody, as you'd expect in the melee, but Beauty is Never Tarnished (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyIsNeverTarnished ).
Trentin Atwell Grognard? Moi?! :D Post-Essentials 4e Melee Training Feat only gives 1/2 your attribute mod to melee damage if you attack with a non-STR stat... I did still recommend it to the bow-Ranger in my 4e group so that she could make opportunity attacks.
Well, some games still had Dex as an important stat for swords as well, at least swords meant for one hand (the same still made 2h swords and various bludgeoning weapons rely on Str, though). And I'm sure somewhere there are systems that'll let you use e.g. Int to improve your sword skill. It could make sense, right?
I think part of the problem comes from kids practicing archery in summer camp with 20 or 30lb pull weight bows and thinking that shooting targets is the same thing as killing a large animal or a person. Modern hunting bows with force multiplying pullies don't help either.
I suspect dungeons and dragons has something to do with this. Bonus damage for swords is generated by the strength attribute. There is a weapon feat for rapiers to switch the accuracy and damage bonuses to your dexterity attribute. Bows are considered a dexterity weapon, also. I would say it is a contributing factor to the stereotype.
I'd really like to see more bow videos from you, esp pertaining to the differences between techniques across different cultures, regions, etc. Stances/postures, arm angles, overhand vs underhand nocking, stuff like that.
You touched on how bows usually don't instantly kill deer, let alone humans and I have a small story supporting that. One of my first bow kills as a young man was a small buck of maybe 100lbs and I hit him straight through the heart and at least one lung (if not both) and he still ran over 40yrds before finally collapsing. That was the day I really learned to respect the strength and endurance of deer and he was only about as big as a small woman!
Lateralus1357 Now add in that the deer wasn't trying to kill you. Living beings are at the same time delicate but incredibly tough depending on the circumstances.
An interesting thing I read in the book "By the Sword" by Richard Cohen, in one of the foot notes, is how drastically using a war bow affects the skeleton. Richard talks about the discovery of an old wooden wreck (rather famous and I don't recall the ships name, it's been some time since I've read the book). They discover the skeletons of the naval archers were almost deformed in the difference between the left and right sides of their bodies. The left sides were significantly oversized from the routine of firing the war bows. That little trivia's just stuck with me since I read it.
I remember when I was a teen, I looked at a compound bow in a hunting shop and took it down to feel it. The string was damn stiff when I tried to pull it and I thought it was locked with the wheels or something and got a bit scared for the moment and put it back. Didn't try to pull as hard as I could but I couldn't even see the string move with moderate force and I don't think that I could have pulled that bow back then.
Henrik Yngvesson They usually do have locks on them on the shelf because dry firing a bow even once can severely damage it. But yes hunting bows tend to have a high draw weight because higher potential arrow speed is what sells them. 50lbs is a perfectly adequate draw weight, but there seems to be a pretty big chunk of the hunting community that insists you need to get up to 70+. A compound also gets lighter when you pull it back and that allows you to shoot a higher weight then you could with a recurve. That's one of the things the wheels do.
Love this video! I've always thought the same thing. Prince Paras in the movie Troy was ridiculous with that bow he was shooting. Then again in the movie The Last Samurai, the younger archer who died on the bridge due to gun fire, appeared more realistic shooting like you said a bow that was packing at least 100lbs of draw strength.
+Steven U That was one of the most powerful scenes in The Last Samurai. Even just recalling it in my mind gives me a sense of something I can't quite explain, like heroic sadness or something like that
Elves in middle earth are not your typical fantasy weaklings. They are actually much stronger than humans. Tolkien has stressed this point in many interviews when the hippies started selling elves as these androgynous, thin, weak creatures. He said elven men do not look like women, nor are they weaklings, they are as strong as a young tree (o-tone) and would overpower even a burly and strong human.
As an American Bow hunter and avid target/3D shooter I find myself trying not to laugh watching midevil genre movies. I do like the way you break the information and uses of different weapons and designs down for your viewers without talking down to them. I shoot a 65lb Compound, I can't imagine trying to pull back a 100+ lb recurve warbow, let alone doing so with just your fingers and no release method.
There's a definite strength factor to the bow. My fourteen year old son is now weight training to improve his archery. Thanks for posting these videos.
When you touched on "punching through resistant material with an arrow," that reminded me of this one time we had a gnarly stray cat prowling around our property (he had been a problem for several weeks, attacking our cats, leaving spray marks, etc.), so I grabbed the nearest weapon, which was a bow (about 40-pound draw weight), and a couple of arrows with field tips. I got within maybe 15 yards of this guy, drew the bow, released the arrow, and nailed him SQUARE in the rib cage. You know what happened? The stupid arrow bounced right off the cat with a "thud." I couldn't believe it. Well, he took off running, and that was the last we've seen of him. I guess a couple of cracked ribs was a strong enough message for him. I still can't believe it didn't pierce his skin...
Also, I'm a 210 bodybuilder at 5'9" and had to work up to a 75lb bow took me about a month with a head start most don't have. I can shoot it all day now but it wasn't easy. I'd like to join the triple digit club before I'm finished though. So spot on in that regard.
+Adam Bodford I'd recommend a heavy bow technique... Using a modern draw where your left hand stays still, almost nobody will do that with warbows. I say this as a guy of Matt's kind of build, who's shot 110lb before.
I'm probably never gonna get their. I'm not training for weight in any way, but I can only handle 40lbs (where I start to get shakey and can't ensure accuracy all the time). I could train up weight and probably get to 70-80lbs after some time, but meh. Not planning on going to war with a warbow anyway ^^. You've got quite an advantage there though
Gex9z Don't sound so smug, it's actually because bow weights stack exponentially and that 75 lbs is stacked on 60 inch limbs so the last few inches are very sudden. As far as bodybuilders not working out their traps, triceps, and biceps, I think you need to get in a gym because you are severely misguided. You just come across as a know-it-all that doesn't know so much... And there is a difference between being able to pull back warbow weights, and being able to pull back, stabilize and shoot accurately at those weights. I had no problems drawing, but remaining stable was a problem. From the way you write I can pretty much tell that you don't set foot in a gym, and that you're not shooting primitive bows at heavy weights. Because you'd know better.
Randy te Morsche I just picked it as something I wanted to do. I obviously don't plan to go to war with my bow either. You don't have to need the bow to have fun shooting at higher weights. I was shooting a 55 lb bow for a while but it was just boring to me. Like shooting a slingshot, fun for a minute but it lost its luster quick. Having the heavier bow is exciting, I find myself shooting more often and for longer sessions.
rchave I'm shooting fine now, it just took some adjustment. I was shooting fine when I typed that. Groupings so close they touch at 40 yards fine. I've always used that technique, that's really basic day 1 stuff. My bow is relatively short and stacks pretty rapidly, so it took me some time to get the stabilizer muscles adjusted to it, that's all. I can shoot it all day now and not get tired. The reason I don't move up is more a matter of price. 75 is about as high as I can go and not have to pay absurd amounts of money or have to order custom arrows and such. I was really referring to his statement about the constant portrayal of bows as a tool of weak people. They just aren't.
That was a very interesting video, I liked that one lol my favourite things to learn are finding out things that people thing are true are actually wrong.
Very good points and I completely agree with you on all of them. It is true that the companies of English archers were probably the most burly men in the army, while a longsword can indeed be used effectively by relatively weak people. One argument I can think of in favour of the burly swordsman is that a battle wasn't really orderly, it really resembled a rugby match, and there was an big amount of shoving and getting shoved, a bit of chaos and random forces being exerted towards you, so physical strength mattered so that a swordsman can stand his own and keep fighting in such conditions.
OH MY GOD! THANK YOU! This trope bothers me so much. I have no idea why a longsword is always seen as a "big, manly weapon" while a bow is "more feminine and agile". It's totally goofy.
Excellent video. Thank you so much for sharing this with us. One of my hobbies is writing original fiction and quite a few of my characters are people who are skilled sword-fighters without being particularly big or strong. It is truly gratifying to know that this is accurate. As for the stereotype, I assume it's simply a case of writers assuming that a physically weaker person would try to avoid melee combat and so write such as characters as using a bow without really knowing how a bow works. Again thank you.
scholagladiatoria Would you consider doing a video on how well different types of shields respond to fire from arrows and other ranged missiles, taking into account shield density, curvature, construction methods and materials and both manoeuvring and protective capabilities unique to each type of shield. Hollywood has a tendency to really, in my opinion, overpower protagonist bow-users; felling countless enemies in one shot. I'd like to see just how well shields actually stand up to them. You could also perhaps cover how easy or difficult it was to simply carry around those shields outside of battle... Anyway, great video, you have my thanks... :)
The most ridiculous representation I've seen of this cliché is in the RPG "Dragon's Crown". Granted, everything in that game is ridiculously over the top, but the archer essentially looks like an 8 year old girl and the knight is nothing but a lumbering mountain of muscle...
To be fair, the knight class in the game doubles as a "tank", taking and blocking hits from other party members. Youd want big man with a big shield to take blows for you ;)
Okay on the opening line I realised the truth. I have a 25-pound bow, I'm 13, and it is pretty difficult for me to hold at full draw much longer than 3 seconds. My friend's dad collects swords, and I've handled one. It is much, much, much easier to wield a sword effectively than a bow. Thanks for pointing out this inaccuracy!! I didn't notice myself...
The idea bows are for the weak comes from people who probably never drew a real strength bow. Looking at an archer in the modern sense there is no sense of the strength it needs
This trope seems to originate from ideas of manliness in Classical society. Paris was an effeminate archer, while Achilles was a manly spear/swordsman. Odysseus was also manly, but he was cunning, too, and unwarlike in many ways, hence his association with bows (though the strength required even to string his bow still demonstrated that he was manly despite being an archer).
You are absolutely right about the mechanism employed by arrows to kill. i have been a moderately successful bow hunter for 17 years and I have never had an animal drop right there when shot, even in the heart with an arrow. Even my crossbow which draws 200 pounds doesn't drop critters on the spot.
Jon English Just wanted to point out that it is not possible to compare draw weights of crossbows and bows directly. On a crossbow the time the crossbow has to get the arrow/bolt up to speed is much shorter, therefore you need a stronger draw weight to get a similar force behind your arrow/bolt. A 150 pound crossbow would fire weaker shots than a 150 pound bow, with the huge benefit that you can hold the draw and aim, and that you can use some tools to make it easier to draw such a heavy crossbow. So a 200 pound crossbow may be weaker than you think (while still beeing quite powerful :) )
diskordianer I agree. the draw weights of bows and cross bows are not comparable. My bowhunting is done with the crossbow (excalibur excocet) and a PSE stalker recurve at 50# draw weight. my Howat hunter recurve draws 65 pounds and I plan to take it moose hunting this year.
lovely video :) thanks so much for posting. would love to hear more about bows; hunting vs composite vs longbow in particular. to my understanding there was no such thing as a 'short bow' which often pops up in fantasy rpgs, and same too with 'composite longbows'. but i'd love to hear fro ma real expert :)
Matt, great video. The stereotype of "weak" characters using bows in Western literature and culture may actually be a holdover that can be traced all the way back to Paris in The Illiad. Writers like Tolkien and Lewis who inspired modern fantasy were classically educated and would have been drawing inspiration from similar ancient sources. Just a thought on the origin question.
Well, your example of Orlando bloom as Legolas doesn't really work, because lord of the rings elves are supernaturally strong, but apart from that a cool video, I really enjoyed it.
To be fair to Legolas, elves have a natural strength to them and use some sort of special, maybe even magical, materials in their bows. I think I remember reading that longbowmen had deformed skeletons due to their asymmetrical arm use. Does that mean that one arm was visibly different enough that you could tell a longbowman by sight? You can tell by the skeletons nowadays, but would've that difference have shown through the flesh? Seeing a guy with a massive right arm could give you two conclusions. One, they're a longbowman. Two, well, they like to play with themselves.
The thing with the deformed skeletons may have actually been due to disease instead of super archery skills. Though I do recall a samurai of Japan that one arm longer than the other and could shoot like crazy. Shame I can't remember the name.
There aren't that many people who draw such heavy bows on a regular basis today, and many of those who do (check with the BLBS / British Longbow Society) have the benefit of modern physiological science in performing exercises that balance out their muscular and skeletal development on their off days. So no, unfortunately we don't have a very good idea of what the asymmetry would have looked like at the time.
It's a shame, I'd love to see a reconstruction or something. It'd be something to think about when writing historical fiction. A longbowman not going to war might be obvious to all due to his arm.
Usually these "tells" are quite subtle, such as thickened skin on just two or three fingers on the drawing hand (the right for a right-handed shooter) or the bow arm (the left for a right-handed shooter) being very slightly shorter than the other arm. These things will only become obvious when they're explicitly pointing it out to you. In my case, my right thumb is noticeably longer than my left since I often use the thumb draw with traditional bows, but the difference isn't visible unless I'm directly comparing the thumbs side by side. Archery-related habits and mannerisms are usually going to be much more obvious. Things like never touching a bow or arrow without asking the owner's permission, never walking between another archer and his/her target, or even subtler things like stretching with one arm straight and the other bent (I didn't realise that I do this before somebody else pointed it out to me).
You mentioned King Arthur! One of my all time favorite movies. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Tristan, my favorite character. That man was god like with the bow and I think he was using a long scimitar. His movement in the first battle was amazing!
Great info. Did not know these bows had such a high draw weight. As a grown man I find 80 lbs. very difficult to draw and simply could not draw 120 lbs.
Matt, As an archer (and hema newb) been thinking a lot on this. I agree with what you are saying, especially in regards to bows: heavy ones take a lot of strength and repeated shooting to use accurately. And swords are not as heavy as people make them out to be (Tho I admit trying a rapier after using a longsword left me tired, you are right about one handed swords being more tiresome if you are not used to them!) Where I have a question is in regards to actual fighting, especially as unlike modern fencing many sword systems have historically used disarms, offhand weapons, grappling, hilt strikes, etc. A lot of the longsword stuff once you move into close range is very physical and i could easily see a small person, who has no problem wielding a sword per se, get squashed. Mass, strength, etc. might not be an issue in terms of sword handling but they are in terms of fighting. Of course this is a separate issue from stereotyping bows as "easy" to use, but I've found that if someone is bigger and stronger it does have an effect. And if they are more experienced, watch out! I assume this is old hat to you as you teach a club, and it is a very different matter than simply being able to "use" to weapons, as an abstract, but wanted to throw it out there because obviously it would effect how someone fights; if you are shorter, weaker, etc., you probably don't want to get to close range, for instance.
I think a big part of the trope is that side characters aren't as good at fighting as the hero so they try to keep them farther away from the enemies and while they're standing in the back we might as well stick a bow in their hands.
The oddest thing in the Lord of the Rings is that while Legolas can fire his incredibly thin arrows from his slender bow through pretty much any target, and that they won't break on impact with even the (presumably) steel shields of the Uruk-hai, you have that one Orc that kills Boromir. Chain mail is the heaviest armour they're facing when chasing down the fellowship, yet he still carries a bow that looks heavy to carry and creates that incredible tension sound when he draws it. Which he does slowly. There's also the thing that that he has no trouble making the arrows go through the armour at a distance, but when he's up close he still draws really hard for his "execution shots". Do you have any recommendations about films and video games that do olden days warfare better than the lot of them?
I actually live in mongolia and learnt some of the martial arts and stuff and knew that mongols use the thumb to pull that hard bow but thanks for doing this video i hope more people watch this
hey, I've seen some vids of you on this channel and (besides the techical information and entertainment, which I like very much) the beard fashions you very well! Let it grow a bit, it enhances your credibility as an expert :)
There might be other incentives in play for the lithe / weak in their weapon choice... the increased range of the bow allows a less bulky person more time to dodge / avoid an incoming blow that a buffer type might be able to resist with a shield / armor.
Hello Matt, love your vids! What kind of recurved bow was that? Could you elaborate a little more about it? Like, it's uses and how would you carry it from battle and in travel. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and showing your weapons to us.
It is interesting, yeah, this topic. An English Longbow, for example, was something only the strongest and best trained archers in that land could use. Not only that, but it was extremely demanding and painful to use over any decent time period, especially without the right equipment.
The base of the hollywood tought is that if you go in melee you prefer to be the strong guy while if you are "weaker" you prefer to keep your distance from the brawl, and to do that and still partecipate in the fight you need a missile weapon, and that's when the bow comes in
I agree, i shoot korean style warbows (i got multiple draw weights starting at 40#) and everytime i take somebody to the range with me, they're suprised at how physically taxing sport it is, especially the really macho guys take a significant ego hit. But alot of them have joined me on my warbow journey, and i believe it's a good way to keep oneself fit - lot of suplemental execises are necessary for health of an archer. Now while i can shoot warbows all days, whenever i go out to train with my swordsplay mate, I'm wheezing just minutes into a proper sparing match. So yeah, I'd say that generally, swords need you doing a bit more cardio, while war archery requires a bit more strength training.
I totally agree with what you say, although I also know why they have this image. A sword is often associated with heavy battles, while bows are mostly associated with stealth and asassins. Because people that are stealthy have to be swift and unseen, they cannot be big and muscled people. While if you are going into battle, you (according to the producers) have to put a lot of strength and force into your swings. So you have to be big and muscled. Also I think many people still believe that swords in the medieval times were very heavy. And when they use a bow nowadays, almost everybody can draw one. They don't understand the fact that bows were 60 to 120 pounds and a sword's weight was about the same as the swords that are still being used.
In the Middle Ages, bowmen also stood at the frontline of a legion to be able to hit the enemies from a longer distance before the two legions met, so this really makes sense
This stereotype I suppose holds true in games like The Elder Scrolls (or any western RPG, really). What you said about Legolas was a poor example, though, considering Legolas actually does use swords - I remember him using two long knives at Helm's Deep. He also used a Rohirric sword at some point. It's just that he's more skilled with a bow. Of course, the second bow he wields is said to have a draw weight of 150 pounds, which seems unlikely for Legolas (unless elves have more strength than humans by default).
That, and elves like him are more durable and almost supernaturally agile, compared to humans. Orlando Bloom also took up the sword in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
Legolas is strong; the elves are quite strong, despite not looking like they are. Even in the LOTR table RPG, all of the Elve types have a bonus strenght that are similar to the Rohirin's bonus, and the Rohirin are the strongest (physical strength) humans in the scenario.
Olympic archers usually do not draw 40-50lbs bows.... The recurve styled shooting makes it so, that as little as 25lbs is enough to hit a target at 70-90 metres. It does take fast limbs and some arrow-tweaking, but usually olympic archers don't come above 35. Though it remains personal preference for each archer.
Could you do a short follow up -video regarding the use of crossbows. If the stereotype was correct that anyone could just pick up a bow and use it then why would anyone use a slow and cumbersome crossbow?
Fairly experienced in archery here, and I have got to say draw weight does not matter as much as people like to think. What matters most is how efficient the bow stores and releases energy. I have seen plenty of lower draw weight bows vastly outperform heavier draw weight bows. Your horsebow for example, as interesting as it is, I imagine shoots fairly slow pound per pound, you have those thick heavy limbs with most of the weight at the tips, as well as that unnecessary leather wrapping. As for warbow/longbows being so ridiculously heavy, it was because they had to be. Longbows are very inefficient at storing and releasing energy compared to a recurve bow, so inefficient you can even feel it in the way it draws, they feel dampened and often stack at the end of the draw, and if you slowly let your draw back down without releasing you can feel how weak the bow is at the end of its power stroke, where as a decent recurve will feel nice and springy the entire powerstroke, you will notice little or no stacking at the end of the draw, and the end of the powerstroke will feel just as lively as the beginning. I still love longbows for their simplicity and forgiveness though. Arrow weight is another matter, too light will mean a little less energy downrange, too heavy means a huge disadvantage in range. You want balance basically, a middle weight arrow. Arrow tuning trumps arrow weight any day, an arrow that flies as straight as possible without wagging and has as little drag from fletching as you can get away is the best solution to energy downrange, or more range in general.
I immediately thought of the film representation of Legolas. You are right though, swords, even the heaviest of them, tend to work well in a gentle hand. The bow requires a rough motion with lots of muscles.
I vaguely remember in "The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe" its the girls who get bows at the end of the book, whereas the boys get swords. This is commonplace in a lot of fantasy fiction - the girls get the bows, not just because this is (incorrectly) perceived as requiring less strength, but also to keep them out of danger and reduce the risk of physical harm.
Question: How did people describe draw weight in more ancient times? Were all bows made to a rough range or were people actually measuring the draw weight even in earlier times?
you don't have to be strong to use a sword but it still requires a lot of muscle to move it for a serious amount of time. I'll never forget when we started sword training in Aikido the teacher had us performing the straight forward strike for 30 minutes. My arms felt sore for 2 weeks. it does require some training to use a sword for a significant amount of time
I've come across other complaints as well, relating to the portrayal of the drawing of the bow, usually shown done with thumb&index finger tips, which is probably not a good idea. I know a hooked thumb was often used, usually with some ring-thimble thing worn.
Wouldn't being stronger/fitter help with all the other elements of sword fighting, such as grappling and using the shield and generaly just not getting as tired?
I agree wholeheartedly with this... except the Orlando bloom in lotr thing. Tolkien describes the elves as lithe and strong, so Orlando bloom, while thin and tall, is still portraying a powerful supernatural being that can handle both bows and swords and any type of weapon really with ease. He most certainly uses swords. But yes, the Keira knightly thing is true.
As an archer I agree you have to be strong to use a bow, but as you mentioned Legolas in LOTR as a thought I'd avoid using mythical creatures as examples, because easy examples can be found for example; denser muscles so they look more slender but have strong muscles. Just a thought, but do agree I've had people struggle with my bow and it's only 65lb draw weight.
I think this perception comes from the images of armored knight and unarmored bowman(typically in imagery from renaissance or much later). The knight looks more bulky due to their armor (especially with plate armor) so the assumption starts that he is more muscular
It's probably to do with stuff like the Conan movies, showing big, burly barbarian types with swords. Maybe that and also the image of the heavy armored knight with his sword. I liked in the first Lord of the Rings, the fighting Uruk Hai, the arrows shot at our heroes and into Borimir, were thick, massive, heavy arrows. And obviously the Uruk Hai were huge.
I am small and thin, I have 165cm and 55kg. I am working in furniture factory so I am used to wear heavy things and bows which has more than 60 lbs are still very heavy and impractical for me, I can draw it ofcourse, but not 100 times in few minutes. For full day shooting 40 lbs is just right for me. So you really need more power for bow than for sword. Ofcourse technique is important too. But I don't think someone who is big and has 100kg is automatically better for heavy bows, but he can use full draw which is good. But even with my 165cm I can draw about 80cm, but aiming with that draw is little complicated for me, 76cm max is much more comfortable for me. But I guess very small people can learn some kind of "ear draw" technique. I think with full life training that ladies from movies can using heavy bows without problem, not super power bows, but that standard cca 70 - 80lbs is possible. I am really surprised how powerful is that stupid only 40 lbs modern bow. I had homemade wooden bow before with similar power about 40 lbs and modern bow with 40 lbs has much more power than 40 lbs wooden not good bow. But it was small bow, I guess longbows are much more effective. But for sword you need training too, I tried one and half handed bastard sword and it's realtively light and easy to use, but after few minutes of fencing hands are really tired and muscles stop working. So you need training for both, bow even sword. But you can always grab long sword and use it somehow for short moment, but you definitely can't grab heavy bow and use it.
9 лет назад
to weak, to weak is the kings bow -Einar Tambarskjelve to King Olav Trygvason during the battle of Svolder. clearly indicating the need for strength in archery
Do axes and percussion weapons require more strength? They have the weight at the front and rely a lot more on impact force, esp. percussion weapons like hammers and clubs.
I think it may actually be a very old trope, dating back to the ancient Greeks. Think of the mocking directed at Paris the Trojan archer prince. The achievable draw weights on the Mediterranean bows (though not the Scythian composite bows I think) were so low that a weaker man could use them, whereas hoplite panoply required greater strength and stamina, especially the helmet and shield. Short non-composite bows were still fairly weak in the early medieval era, and of relatively limited effectiveness, unless you took one in the eye like Harold. Later yew war bows and composite bows of course were very nasty.
Thanks. I was just wondering: While you (as you rightly point out) don't have to be especially strong to strike an incapacitating blow with the sword against an unarmoured opponent, would body strength play a greater role in armoured fighting, what with the greater emphasis on "wrestling", overpowering and pinning the opponent?
No. Armor is equaly distributed over body so it doesnt weigh you down. In case of plate armor more so. Only thing that changes is that you hold a sword shorter, for example holding it by one hand at the handle and other one at half the blade, and using it a little bit like a pike, going for vulnerable areas like eyes, groins etc...
Muhamed Husic - Ibrukic I'm not talking about the weight of the armour itself, I'm talking about the nature of armoured fighting. While I'm not especially familiar with its techniques, I have read that it required greater contact, with combatants getting in close and trying to force their opponent into such a position that they could exploit the weak points in the armpits, visor, etc., either by throwing them to the ground or by pinning their arms in place. My question was whether the necessity of using these techniques might put a stronger combatant at an advantage over a weaker one, to a greater extent than if both combatants were unarmoured.
Muhamed Husic - Ibrukic Any weight, whether armour, clothes or body fat, weighs you down, no matter how evenly distributed it is. The legs still have to carry all the weight when you move them, and the lungs need to draw in all the more oxygen to support the muscles. I used to be extremely skinny, but since my metabolism changed when I turned 25, I have gained 60 pounds of weight over the years, stabilizing at around 90 kgs (180 lbs). It is fairly evenly distributed, and while I do not notice it much in my day-to-day affairs with normal activity, I do notice it very much indeed when doing anything strenuous. Some things are made easier because of the added weight, for example anything that involves pushing (and that includes wrestling), but the body needs more oxygen, and my legs get sore more easily. Though my legs have naturally gotten stronger as I grew heavier. As to KorKhan's question, the answer is yes, absolutely. The more you use your muscles, the more important strength becomes. And wrestling is absolutely an activity where strength helps a great deal. You do not have to be strong to perform the techniques with the prescribed equipment, no, but you had better not be a weakling against an actual opponent.
How limiting is strength in regards to two handed/larger melee weapons? For example, how small/weak can you be and actually be able to wield a true two handed sword or halberd?
I don't fully agree with you. Those who fight with sword are more likely to end fighting only with hands in the melee than the archers, also soldiers in the frontline have to resist to charges and hold the front. It depends of course to what combat we're talking about but I hope you'll get my point in spite of my grammar mistakes. (from France)
I enjoyed the twist in the story. As a writer I can easily imagine a screenwriter falsely concluding that girls shoot the bow while men use the sword. *leaves to reread his current work" lol
Got to agree that using a war bow takes strength and the more strength you have the more powerful the bow you can use effectively. Swords on the other hand can be used with less beef especially if you are using the point.
Once again, excellent common sense analysis. Growing up in a hunting family in the great State of Illinois where the only legal way to hunt a deer is with a bow, I can verify that everything you said about shooting a deer is correct. Our specific family trick was that if you shot a deer at dawn you went to breakfast before trying to track the deer down. Track them right after shooting and they keep running and running... Let them on their own for a bit and they run a little ways and then settle down and take a bit of a nap from the lack of blood and die peacefully near where you shot them.
I remember reading the Odyssey in high school, and reading how only Odysseus was strong enough to string his bow.
yep, good stuff
The Greeks did have a low opinion of lightly-armed and armored missile troops if I recall correctly.
I remember reading that at school too. Sadly, almost no-one is taught Greek these days. It's a great shame.
Like Arya in GoT. She can barely pick up a longsword one of the Lannister man dropped but has no problem with practicing archery with massive warbow she just borrowed from a brilliant archer.
JRR Tolkien responding to fans' portrayals of Legolas as effeminate or androgynous: "He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgul, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship "
Tolkien, as a soldier himself and a lover of history and antiquity, knew that to draw a heavy bow requires a lot of strength. Note that 'lithe' does not mean 'scrawny'. It implies grace and fitness; the kind of muscles you get from long practice and repetition rather than lifting heavy weights. Bruce Lee was lithe rather than bulky. That kind of strength.
Trees are described as lithe sometimes, and do we question their strength? That's all people need to remember when they see that word haha.
WrappedInGray well considering that strength isn't always dictated by muscle bulk, if you look at power lifters, rock climbers, and other people who lift heavy weights they're rarely bulky like body builders (body builder's bulky muscles are mostly due to constant tearing of the muscle to build mass quickly due to swelling, where a rock climber who (many of whom may carry as much as 200lb on a single finger at times while hanging from a rock) have sinewy muscles.
speaking as someone who is an archer (using a 55lb bow), boulderer, martial artist and who's job involves carrying logs and rocks to look at I'm not much (about average build, little on the athletic side) but I've been known to beat people much larger than me in arm wrestling.
taking LOTR into account legolas was never actually described in the book, it wasn't until years after the books were written that tolkien described him. I have a collection of sketches in a book on middle earth drawn by tolkin's brother (I believe without checking i know a few of the sketches were done by him) showing all of the major characters, as well as a few minor ones (such as goldberry) the one character that wasn't drawn was legolas as there is no actual discription of him in the book. the blonde hair blue eyed effeminate elf actually came from the animated LOTR movie. (and considering that all other elves had dark hair in the book it's a little odd him being blonde)
crwydryny Exactly. I was actually thinking of climbers whilst writing that, but thought Bruce Lee would be an easier reference point. My point really was that elves are usually portrayed as being skinny-jeans type androgynous emo kids/transvestites but with long flowing hair, and in most fantasy genres women are shown as archers, because there is the false assumption that bows rely less on strength than bladed weapons do when in fact it is completely the other way around, at least when talking about bows intended for war.
*****
yeah bruce lee is probably the easiest refrence point, compared to most action stars such as arnold and sly, he was small yet he could do pressups on the tips of two fingers.
I think the reason that movies give women bows is because of the idea that a woman shouldn't have to get herself dirty or put herself in harms way, so giving her a range weapon she stays safe away from the bad guy while slaughtering them and still being a badass, where as the big tough men get dirty covered in blood, cut and stabbed and continue fighting on
crwydryny Yup, but that's repeated so often, that people just get the wrong idea. I've shot a 70lb bow, and maybe an 80lb one. Those were a bloody heavy draw, and that's less than half the weight of some medieval bows.
I don't know where the idea came from, but I do know it's prevalent in role playing games. It always bothers me that the 'fighter' types use strength while the 'archer' types use dexterity or agility. If anything, it seems like the reverse would be a better approximation.
+Blake Winter Well, the bow was considered a "feminine" weapon in greek/roman mythology, since it would be "unmanly" to face your enemies from a distance. Its not exactly cowardly (although it might be), but it wouldn't be the proper way to fight.. We can see either "effeminate" or "cunning" characters using it - Paris, son of Priam; Odysseus (although he is also prominent in hand to hand, he is a master in cunning and deceit - he uses the bow when killing his enemies at his house); Apollo, who is not a full grown man but a young, beautiful and immature boy; and Diana. It's also worth considering that maybe this stigma of bows being weak and feminine came from the fact that Greece's enemies user archers a lot - the Persians
I think those reasons might give us a clue.
And yes, I agree with you. Honestly, I believe that dexterity should always be used to attack, and strength to roll damage. No one uses raw muscle to hit someone.
+La Nausée Yes yes. Then try charging in heavy armour wielding a shield and melee weapon and continuing the struggle through an entire battle lasting for hours and tell me you don't have to be strong while the archer stands around in light clothing loosing arrows. Of course you can be relatively weak and wield a sword. So what? In a clash of melee infantry in closed ranks the strength will count (just think of Greek Phalanx pushing or late Roman era battles. All pushing and shoving, no agility involved at all. AAAAAND we don;t mention cross bows which any kid can handle. Not everyone was a longbowman! A hundred big dude swordsmen in closed ranks vs a hundred gamine little girls similarly armed will be a foregone conclusion. 100 big dudes with crossbows vs 100 emo teenies also with crossbows is relatively even ;-) Fair point?
La Nausée I was questioning your argument about the trope. It is absolutely completely logical for melee fighters to be typically stronger than archers. Are you backing away from that argument? I don't dispute that a tremendous amount of very specific strength is needed to draw a longbow but not all archers (or even more than a fraction in history) were longbowmen, hence their high value. And what is the point of discussing duelling in a debate about whether archers are mis-portrayed as weaker vs melee troops? You are not suggesting archers duel with swordsmen are you? And the "trope" you dismiss is not specific to duellists so, again, how does duelling count? The issue is simply one of what sort of strength attributes would you expect to find in the typical archer vs the typical melee infantry man in the ancient and medieval period. Barring exceptions I would completely expect the frontline infantry man to be both bigger, stronger and fitter than a bowman and do not see any plausible argument against this made here.If you are going to call out a trope, you can do better than this.
La Nausée Fair enough. I still believe a line infantryman in ancient and medieval times would need to be stronger than an archer all things being equal. If only for the need to sustain a violent melee and carry armour and equipment. Do you at least agree with that?
La Nausée Agreed ;-) See, pleasant discussions can be had on RUclips to resolve disagreements!
It gets worse in movies when they draw a heavy bow and just hold it for an eternity before releasing.. Hate it when they do that.. it takes maybe a second to draw a bow. Add perhaps another second or two to aim it properly.. no need to draw and hold for 45 seconds..
Don't forget people yelling "fire" too...
I have seen in one movie where the 2 sides were meeting to discuss peace offering , they had a line of 10 archers each who drew their bows and held it for the whole scene when they were talking ... it was like 5 minutes. The bowstring would pull out their hands out of their joints at that point probably .
Aqull If you can hold your bow at full-draw for that long, you should be using a much more powerful bow.
Bill lol yes, good point.
"so, we are all agreed then, tea and cakes over at mine in 15m to cellebrate?"
*Twangggg.. zzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZIIPPPP... THUD*
"fuck. nm"
I was reading an article in a modern hunting magazine and it quoted a 1930s article for bow hunting. The techniques were much different from today. The old article described drawing back and releasing the arrow instantaneously in a fluid continuous motion versus holding at full draw, aiming and then releasing.
Interestingly, I read an Indian mythological story where the man who could draw a certain powerful bow was considered the strongest in the land.
Same thing in the Odyssey where no one was strong enough to string Odysseus's bow.
I blame Romanticism - exacerbated (irreversibly?) by D&D - for all those wrong common ideas on arms and armors in general. And for bows in particular guns having warped the perception of all ranged weapons.
great video, thanks, you are the best :D one day I will become your student
I keep imagening you shooting the longsword with the bow for some reason.
+angelowl89 I had wondered if anyone else was thinking that. Every time the two got close at a certain angle I would get this excited feeling from imagining a volley of longswords flying through the air
You ruined the video .
ruclips.net/video/GfTGkrSSpZA/видео.html
why bother shooting a sword? just shoot the pommel!
It bothers me when someone in a film gets shot with an arrow, and they just pluck it out (and don't have any issues with the barbed head doing this) and they're instantly better.
Just in case anyone doesn't know this (and I wouldn't be surprised with the way films and tv get this wrong so often), if you ever get impaled on anything like that - LEAVE IT IN, go to hospital and let the surgeons remove it. The reason being that the arrow/knife/pointy stick/whatever will be plugging the hole it's just made and stopping blood loss...removing it could cause you to actually bleed to death.
As someone who once did archery as a hobby this has also insanely bothered me.
I never had the strength to draw back a long bow, I probably could have if I worked at it more, but it's not something I was ever able to do.
The idea that archers could be weak has insanely bothered me for this reason, lol
Seems like the stereotype comes from the fact that swordsmen were on the front lines whilst archers were behind. Therefore people on the front lines were "strong and courageous" while people on the back lines were "cowards", therefore weak. I don't agree with that, but it just seems the like common reasoning.
***** Actually, during the 100 Years War, the English Archers were considered to be so dangerous to the French Troops, that the French threatened to cut off the middle and pointer finger of any English bowman they captured. They were HIGHLY thought of in England. They were quite fond of their archers.
101ultimategaming Which if I remember rightly, lead to the index and middle finger "V" being the English equivalent of flipping the bird. Supposedly archers would wiggle said fingers in the direction of the enemy as a way to say that they could still "feather" them. Leading to the modern middle finger meaning F You
Hammer Hand Yep, it was their way of saying, "Come get it bitches!"
101ultimategaming How you view an archer or crossbowmen is propably on which side of the arrow or bolt you are. I can also imagine that there was a certain type of rivalism between different troops and units, just like there is in modern armies. I don't think that denouncing archers as "cowards" is actually a new thing.
When the enemy is raining arrows down on you and you have no way of fighting back I can see how you would curse them for beeing cowards not fighting you men to men.
PositiveBlackSoul Exactly
Media typically portrays swordsmanship as requiring great strength and archery mainly relying on agility when in reality it's just the opposite.
It's pretty intresting, really. In a lot of ancient accounts, specifically fictional or quasi-fictional (that is to say, embellished or just based on a vague true story) stories and legends of warriors, you can often see a very different attitude towards bows. Bows are a bit different from many other weapons, because they're a "system" more so than a simple extension of your arm used for hitting. And often you see this theme of a warrior proving himself with some feat of the bow. Bows that are tremendously hard to bend, or shots that would be impossible for lesser men than the great warrior in question.
For example, in Odyssey, while Odysseus has been away for years, his wife Penelope is troubled by many new suitors, and manages to keep them at bay, so to speak, by telling them that only the man who could repeat his husband's feat of shooting an arrow through twelve axe heads would be a suitable suitor. And as it turns out, Odysseus' bow alone is too mighty for most of them to string properly, much less shoot - whereas Odysseus himself returns and proves his identity by handily completing the feat without much trouble.
Bows were very much a lauded, powerful weapon in history. They were something a warrior used to *kill* things (you don't fight with bows, you shoot things with them), and they certainly weren't associated with weakness. Probably because people back then had a much more experience-based outlook on them.
Excellent example of Greeks, in particular (who are usually among those cited as despising long-ranged combat), elevating the bow as manly and powerful.
I've never understood this in game of thrones, when Arya struggles to pick up one of the Lannister soldiers long swords, she's 5"2 and weighs around 8/9 stone surely picking up a long sword should still be easy?
MasterIceyy Yes, it should.
MasterIceyy Yeah, TV/Film would have you believe that swords are made out of lead or something. A child could lift a properly made longsword easily.
Trumbles nah led is too light they're made of osmiridium
+MasterIceyy She is then shown in season 3 (I think) able to handle a Lannister sword. Although she wasn't as good at using one as Thoros.
i the fight at the cross roads in with the hound she picks up a lannister longsword and handles it as if it were a solid meter squared block of lead
Tolkien's Elves are supposed to be superhuman superhumanly strong, not at all weak or soft. Smooth, yes. But smooth as polished steel is.
Although their strength is waning since their first generation, Legolas would have been probably stronger than Aragorn, who was himself of a more mythical bloodline.
This is easy to see if one looks at the dialogue between the Orc soldiers after Sam kills the spider. They suspect a mighty, strong warrior. So they think it must have been an Elf, not a mere human.
They probably imagine Fingolfin had risen from the grave or something like that.
+Björn Czaia Orcs are blacken Elves, too.
I believe it's because of the difference between close combat and shooting projectiles. The assumption is that frailer people are worse at close combat, so they'd be better off shooting projectiles from a distance. The problem is that people who don't use bows likely underestimate how hard it is to pull these old warbows back. They're assuming projectiles are easy, like firearms are easy physically.
I'd love to see this kind of scene in a film: In an army camp we see a bunch of really big and burly men, stringing their bows. The cliché warrior princess who has been practising with her toy bow earlier in the film walks up to them, the biggest of the archers challenges her to a shooting contest. She, having practised a lot before, is confident that she can beat him (maybe earlier we saw her during practise in the royal castle's court yard and now we think that she is really good with the bow). The tough archer picks up his huge war bow and shoots an arrow at the target, but misses the bull's eye by a few inches. He is really proud of himself and taunts the princess.
Here we have two options for the outcome:
Either, the princess picks up her personal bow (which obviously has only a very low poundage), draws and shoots but the shot falls far too short. The other option (which I prefer) is this: She picks up the archer's war bow, expecting it to be just as light as her own practise bow. She nocks an arrow and tries to draw, but she can't even manage to draw it even a few inches. Shamed, she has to forfeit.
I know, that's a bit anticlimactic, but it would be so refreshing to see!
THAT IS AWESOME! I am so steali- inspired to take cues from it!
oh please do! :D
*****
arya stark would like a word with you....
elgostine Yuuki Asuna would like to have a word with you.
In the books, Arya could barely draw Anguy's bow so that's something.
wanadeena
oh yes, i forgot about asuna, we also have the vampire duo from soul calibur, raphael and his umm, daughter?
but i think weve proved our point, however these are the exceptions.
With regards to the modern stereotype of archers being physically weaker or even effeminate, could it have derived from the Western heroic culture going all the way back to the Greeks viewing archers as less "manly" or heroic than those who fought in close quarters with sword or spear? (i.e. the idea that killing from afar with a bow was some how less courageous than meeting an opponent shield to shield) Could more modern writers have reinterpreted this earlier prejudice from one based on moral strength or courage to one based on physical strength? Especially in film, it is much easier to represent the difference between characters visually than through character development requiring lots of dialogue.
+Joe Cheavens Or games that use Agility instead of Dex, need a weapon to use that to grant proficiency? Dexterity is NOT Agility.
And probably Swords would need more dexterity and agility than bows ever would whilst bows would probably require more strength than swords every would...I mean you don't have to be strong to stab someone with a sword, humans are quite frail...
+David Bodor no? Well light weapons are usually finesse or "finesse able". Dex is a coordination stat and firing a bow requires trained hand eye coordination. Once again dex!=agi. Agility is a math stat for computers.
Thomas Paglione
Well okay Dexterity is better for bow if you have a Finesse stat but how many stats can you have in one game XD apparently a shitton if you play Pillars of Eternety...
David Bodor PoE is a videogame, and needs all those stats to process everything. In tabletops you can have less intergers and do more with less. Video games have 0, 1 and thats it. All other math has to be done in formulas, that breaks down with just 6 stats, and balance matters in a game were DM/GM cannot say no.
scholagladiatoria
Most likely it came from the common perspective in most of Western military culture of the prevalence of melee combat over missile. This view was evident in Ancient Greek, Roman and also Medieval military thinking, with the military elite being all but contemptuous towards missile weapon in general - a proper fighting men (and incidentally their society's elites) wear armor and wield a sword or a polearm, leaving chucking rocks and sticks to lesser men. This is carried forward into our modern way of thinking in the media - the hero, a stereotypical big, tall, strong man always wield a sword, while the sidekick uses the less heroic bow.
In the rare occasion where Western military culture used bows to an extensive degree, they acknowledged that military archers in general were brawny hulking beasts - a foreign eyewitness of Richard IV's bowmen described them as 'men with limbs of iron' and 'stronger than any other men', even their swords were 'as long as ours but also broad and heavy'.
In cultures where archery was synonymous with military prowess (as is the case with most eastern cultures) drawing a bow was a common way of measuring strength. Chinese military examination from ancient times up to the early 19th century graded recruits based on the strength of the bow they were able to use effectively.
I've heard interesting theories that the bow/sword flip-flop comes from the stereotype that "Guys Smash, Girls Shoot". The idea goes that the audience can deal with a heroine (generally seen as if not actually physically weaker, at least in upper body) being in combat as long as she does not have to be close or physically overpowering someone. So then this swiveled into 'weak people shoot, strong people smash/slash'. Then again, it may have to do with the (relative) ease of firearms having us forget that bows are really hard to use without training. Like, string=trigger.
Exactly! Here's the TV Tropes page for that: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot , if anyone's curious for more. A big part of it is that a heroine doesn't have to smear her makeup if she's shooting from the back rank. It's OK for men to get bruised and bloody, as you'd expect in the melee, but Beauty is Never Tarnished (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeautyIsNeverTarnished ).
Whatever. Everyone knows swords require high STR and bows require high DEX.
;-)
***** Well played, sir...
***** Sparrowhawk's clearly a 4e guy, tmWasted a 3e/3.5e. :)
simontmn Hey now, you could use any stat for melee in 4e! =D And 3/3.5 were loaded with their on problems. Don't go busting all grognard on youtube.
Trentin Atwell Grognard? Moi?! :D Post-Essentials 4e Melee Training Feat only gives 1/2 your attribute mod to melee damage if you attack with a non-STR stat... I did still recommend it to the bow-Ranger in my 4e group so that she could make opportunity attacks.
Well, some games still had Dex as an important stat for swords as well, at least swords meant for one hand (the same still made 2h swords and various bludgeoning weapons rely on Str, though).
And I'm sure somewhere there are systems that'll let you use e.g. Int to improve your sword skill. It could make sense, right?
I think part of the problem comes from kids practicing archery in summer camp with 20 or 30lb pull weight bows and thinking that shooting targets is the same thing as killing a large animal or a person. Modern hunting bows with force multiplying pullies don't help either.
I suspect dungeons and dragons has something to do with this.
Bonus damage for swords is generated by the strength attribute.
There is a weapon feat for rapiers to switch the accuracy and damage bonuses to your dexterity attribute.
Bows are considered a dexterity weapon, also.
I would say it is a contributing factor to the stereotype.
I'd really like to see more bow videos from you, esp pertaining to the differences between techniques across different cultures, regions, etc. Stances/postures, arm angles, overhand vs underhand nocking, stuff like that.
You touched on how bows usually don't instantly kill deer, let alone humans and I have a small story supporting that. One of my first bow kills as a young man was a small buck of maybe 100lbs and I hit him straight through the heart and at least one lung (if not both) and he still ran over 40yrds before finally collapsing. That was the day I really learned to respect the strength and endurance of deer and he was only about as big as a small woman!
Lateralus1357 Now add in that the deer wasn't trying to kill you. Living beings are at the same time delicate but incredibly tough depending on the circumstances.
An interesting thing I read in the book "By the Sword" by Richard Cohen, in one of the foot notes, is how drastically using a war bow affects the skeleton. Richard talks about the discovery of an old wooden wreck (rather famous and I don't recall the ships name, it's been some time since I've read the book). They discover the skeletons of the naval archers were almost deformed in the difference between the left and right sides of their bodies. The left sides were significantly oversized from the routine of firing the war bows. That little trivia's just stuck with me since I read it.
I remember when I was a teen, I looked at a compound bow in a hunting shop and took it down to feel it. The string was damn stiff when I tried to pull it and I thought it was locked with the wheels or something and got a bit scared for the moment and put it back. Didn't try to pull as hard as I could but I couldn't even see the string move with moderate force and I don't think that I could have pulled that bow back then.
Henrik Yngvesson They usually do have locks on them on the shelf because dry firing a bow even once can severely damage it. But yes hunting bows tend to have a high draw weight because higher potential arrow speed is what sells them. 50lbs is a perfectly adequate draw weight, but there seems to be a pretty big chunk of the hunting community that insists you need to get up to 70+. A compound also gets lighter when you pull it back and that allows you to shoot a higher weight then you could with a recurve. That's one of the things the wheels do.
Love this video! I've always thought the same thing. Prince Paras in the movie Troy was ridiculous with that bow he was shooting. Then again in the movie The Last Samurai, the younger archer who died on the bridge due to gun fire, appeared more realistic shooting like you said a bow that was packing at least 100lbs of draw strength.
+Steven U That was one of the most powerful scenes in The Last Samurai. Even just recalling it in my mind gives me a sense of something I can't quite explain, like heroic sadness or something like that
Elves in middle earth are not your typical fantasy weaklings. They are actually much stronger than humans. Tolkien has stressed this point in many interviews when the hippies started selling elves as these androgynous, thin, weak creatures. He said elven men do not look like women, nor are they weaklings, they are as strong as a young tree (o-tone) and would overpower even a burly and strong human.
As an American Bow hunter and avid target/3D shooter I find myself trying not to laugh watching midevil genre movies. I do like the way you break the information and uses of different weapons and designs down for your viewers without talking down to them. I shoot a 65lb Compound, I can't imagine trying to pull back a 100+ lb recurve warbow, let alone doing so with just your fingers and no release method.
There's a definite strength factor to the bow. My fourteen year old son is now weight training to improve his archery.
Thanks for posting these videos.
When you touched on "punching through resistant material with an arrow," that reminded me of this one time we had a gnarly stray cat prowling around our property (he had been a problem for several weeks, attacking our cats, leaving spray marks, etc.), so I grabbed the nearest weapon, which was a bow (about 40-pound draw weight), and a couple of arrows with field tips. I got within maybe 15 yards of this guy, drew the bow, released the arrow, and nailed him SQUARE in the rib cage. You know what happened? The stupid arrow bounced right off the cat with a "thud." I couldn't believe it. Well, he took off running, and that was the last we've seen of him. I guess a couple of cracked ribs was a strong enough message for him. I still can't believe it didn't pierce his skin...
Also, I'm a 210 bodybuilder at 5'9" and had to work up to a 75lb bow took me about a month with a head start most don't have. I can shoot it all day now but it wasn't easy. I'd like to join the triple digit club before I'm finished though. So spot on in that regard.
+Adam Bodford
I'd recommend a heavy bow technique... Using a modern draw where your left hand stays still, almost nobody will do that with warbows.
I say this as a guy of Matt's kind of build, who's shot 110lb before.
I'm probably never gonna get their. I'm not training for weight in any way, but I can only handle 40lbs (where I start to get shakey and can't ensure accuracy all the time). I could train up weight and probably get to 70-80lbs after some time, but meh. Not planning on going to war with a warbow anyway ^^. You've got quite an advantage there though
Gex9z Don't sound so smug, it's actually because bow weights stack exponentially and that 75 lbs is stacked on 60 inch limbs so the last few inches are very sudden. As far as bodybuilders not working out their traps, triceps, and biceps, I think you need to get in a gym because you are severely misguided. You just come across as a know-it-all that doesn't know so much... And there is a difference between being able to pull back warbow weights, and being able to pull back, stabilize and shoot accurately at those weights. I had no problems drawing, but remaining stable was a problem. From the way you write I can pretty much tell that you don't set foot in a gym, and that you're not shooting primitive bows at heavy weights. Because you'd know better.
Randy te Morsche I just picked it as something I wanted to do. I obviously don't plan to go to war with my bow either. You don't have to need the bow to have fun shooting at higher weights. I was shooting a 55 lb bow for a while but it was just boring to me. Like shooting a slingshot, fun for a minute but it lost its luster quick. Having the heavier bow is exciting, I find myself shooting more often and for longer sessions.
rchave I'm shooting fine now, it just took some adjustment. I was shooting fine when I typed that. Groupings so close they touch at 40 yards fine. I've always used that technique, that's really basic day 1 stuff. My bow is relatively short and stacks pretty rapidly, so it took me some time to get the stabilizer muscles adjusted to it, that's all. I can shoot it all day now and not get tired. The reason I don't move up is more a matter of price. 75 is about as high as I can go and not have to pay absurd amounts of money or have to order custom arrows and such. I was really referring to his statement about the constant portrayal of bows as a tool of weak people. They just aren't.
That was a very interesting video, I liked that one lol my favourite things to learn are finding out things that people thing are true are actually wrong.
Very good points and I completely agree with you on all of them. It is true that the companies of English archers were probably the most burly men in the army, while a longsword can indeed be used effectively by relatively weak people. One argument I can think of in favour of the burly swordsman is that a battle wasn't really orderly, it really resembled a rugby match, and there was an big amount of shoving and getting shoved, a bit of chaos and random forces being exerted towards you, so physical strength mattered so that a swordsman can stand his own and keep fighting in such conditions.
OH MY GOD! THANK YOU! This trope bothers me so much. I have no idea why a longsword is always seen as a "big, manly weapon" while a bow is "more feminine and agile". It's totally goofy.
Excellent video. Thank you so much for sharing this with us.
One of my hobbies is writing original fiction and quite a few of my characters are people who are skilled sword-fighters without being particularly big or strong. It is truly gratifying to know that this is accurate.
As for the stereotype, I assume it's simply a case of writers assuming that a physically weaker person would try to avoid melee combat and so write such as characters as using a bow without really knowing how a bow works.
Again thank you.
scholagladiatoria Would you consider doing a video on how well different types of shields respond to fire from arrows and other ranged missiles, taking into account shield density, curvature, construction methods and materials and both manoeuvring and protective capabilities unique to each type of shield. Hollywood has a tendency to really, in my opinion, overpower protagonist bow-users; felling countless enemies in one shot. I'd like to see just how well shields actually stand up to them. You could also perhaps cover how easy or difficult it was to simply carry around those shields outside of battle...
Anyway, great video, you have my thanks... :)
The most ridiculous representation I've seen of this cliché is in the RPG "Dragon's Crown". Granted, everything in that game is ridiculously over the top, but the archer essentially looks like an 8 year old girl and the knight is nothing but a lumbering mountain of muscle...
And the dwarf couldn't even tie his shoelaces.
To be fair, the knight class in the game doubles as a "tank", taking and blocking hits from other party members. Youd want big man with a big shield to take blows for you ;)
Okay on the opening line I realised the truth. I have a 25-pound bow, I'm 13, and it is pretty difficult for me to hold at full draw much longer than 3 seconds. My friend's dad collects swords, and I've handled one. It is much, much, much easier to wield a sword effectively than a bow. Thanks for pointing out this inaccuracy!! I didn't notice myself...
The idea bows are for the weak comes from people who probably never drew a real strength bow. Looking at an archer in the modern sense there is no sense of the strength it needs
This trope seems to originate from ideas of manliness in Classical society. Paris was an effeminate archer, while Achilles was a manly spear/swordsman. Odysseus was also manly, but he was cunning, too, and unwarlike in many ways, hence his association with bows (though the strength required even to string his bow still demonstrated that he was manly despite being an archer).
That was fantastic, thank you so much!
Very informative. Thanks man =)
as Bruce Lee would say, "the stiff oak breaks easily under strain, be like the willow that you may bend"
You are absolutely right about the mechanism employed by arrows to kill. i have been a moderately successful bow hunter for 17 years and I have never had an animal drop right there when shot, even in the heart with an arrow. Even my crossbow which draws 200 pounds doesn't drop critters on the spot.
Jon English Just wanted to point out that it is not possible to compare draw weights of crossbows and bows directly. On a crossbow the time the crossbow has to get the arrow/bolt up to speed is much shorter, therefore you need a stronger draw weight to get a similar force behind your arrow/bolt. A 150 pound crossbow would fire weaker shots than a 150 pound bow, with the huge benefit that you can hold the draw and aim, and that you can use some tools to make it easier to draw such a heavy crossbow.
So a 200 pound crossbow may be weaker than you think (while still beeing quite powerful :) )
diskordianer I agree. the draw weights of bows and cross bows are not comparable. My bowhunting is done with the crossbow (excalibur excocet) and a PSE stalker recurve at 50# draw weight. my Howat hunter recurve draws 65 pounds and I plan to take it moose hunting this year.
@diskordianer: I remember in the video made by skallagrim, he mentioned that a 350 lb wooden crossbow has kinetic energy similar as 70-80 lb bow.
lovely video :) thanks so much for posting. would love to hear more about bows; hunting vs composite vs longbow in particular. to my understanding there was no such thing as a 'short bow' which often pops up in fantasy rpgs, and same too with 'composite longbows'. but i'd love to hear fro ma real expert :)
Matt, great video. The stereotype of "weak" characters using bows in Western literature and culture may actually be a holdover that can be traced all the way back to Paris in The Illiad. Writers like Tolkien and Lewis who inspired modern fantasy were classically educated and would have been drawing inspiration from similar ancient sources. Just a thought on the origin question.
Well, your example of Orlando bloom as Legolas doesn't really work, because lord of the rings elves are supernaturally strong, but apart from that a cool video, I really enjoyed it.
I'm pretty sure the origins of this weird stereotype are in the words "game balance"
To be fair to Legolas, elves have a natural strength to them and use some sort of special, maybe even magical, materials in their bows.
I think I remember reading that longbowmen had deformed skeletons due to their asymmetrical arm use. Does that mean that one arm was visibly different enough that you could tell a longbowman by sight? You can tell by the skeletons nowadays, but would've that difference have shown through the flesh?
Seeing a guy with a massive right arm could give you two conclusions.
One, they're a longbowman.
Two, well, they like to play with themselves.
The thing with the deformed skeletons may have actually been due to disease instead of super archery skills. Though I do recall a samurai of Japan that one arm longer than the other and could shoot like crazy. Shame I can't remember the name.
There aren't that many people who draw such heavy bows on a regular basis today, and many of those who do (check with the BLBS / British Longbow Society) have the benefit of modern physiological science in performing exercises that balance out their muscular and skeletal development on their off days. So no, unfortunately we don't have a very good idea of what the asymmetry would have looked like at the time.
It's a shame, I'd love to see a reconstruction or something.
It'd be something to think about when writing historical fiction. A longbowman not going to war might be obvious to all due to his arm.
Usually these "tells" are quite subtle, such as thickened skin on just two or three fingers on the drawing hand (the right for a right-handed shooter) or the bow arm (the left for a right-handed shooter) being very slightly shorter than the other arm. These things will only become obvious when they're explicitly pointing it out to you. In my case, my right thumb is noticeably longer than my left since I often use the thumb draw with traditional bows, but the difference isn't visible unless I'm directly comparing the thumbs side by side.
Archery-related habits and mannerisms are usually going to be much more obvious. Things like never touching a bow or arrow without asking the owner's permission, never walking between another archer and his/her target, or even subtler things like stretching with one arm straight and the other bent (I didn't realise that I do this before somebody else pointed it out to me).
Pradana P. M. Speaking of the thumb, do you use a thumb ring? Is there a difference between using the thumb and the more common way?
You mentioned King Arthur! One of my all time favorite movies. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Tristan, my favorite character. That man was god like with the bow and I think he was using a long scimitar. His movement in the first battle was amazing!
Great info. Did not know these bows had such a high draw weight. As a grown man I find 80 lbs. very difficult to draw and simply could not draw 120 lbs.
Not sure about England, but here in the US, most states require a draw weight of at least 55-60 in order to hint deer.
Matt, As an archer (and hema newb) been thinking a lot on this. I agree with what you are saying, especially in regards to bows: heavy ones take a lot of strength and repeated shooting to use accurately. And swords are not as heavy as people make them out to be (Tho I admit trying a rapier after using a longsword left me tired, you are right about one handed swords being more tiresome if you are not used to them!)
Where I have a question is in regards to actual fighting, especially as unlike modern fencing many sword systems have historically used disarms, offhand weapons, grappling, hilt strikes, etc. A lot of the longsword stuff once you move into close range is very physical and i could easily see a small person, who has no problem wielding a sword per se, get squashed. Mass, strength, etc. might not be an issue in terms of sword handling but they are in terms of fighting. Of course this is a separate issue from stereotyping bows as "easy" to use, but I've found that if someone is bigger and stronger it does have an effect. And if they are more experienced, watch out!
I assume this is old hat to you as you teach a club, and it is a very different matter than simply being able to "use" to weapons, as an abstract, but wanted to throw it out there because obviously it would effect how someone fights; if you are shorter, weaker, etc., you probably don't want to get to close range, for instance.
Wish I knew about your classes while I was in London last summer. XD
someone has been watching King Authur..the crap version with Romans.
Could you make a video about the english longbow and the crossbow?
I think a big part of the trope is that side characters aren't as good at fighting as the hero so they try to keep them farther away from the enemies and while they're standing in the back we might as well stick a bow in their hands.
The oddest thing in the Lord of the Rings is that while Legolas can fire his incredibly thin arrows from his slender bow through pretty much any target, and that they won't break on impact with even the (presumably) steel shields of the Uruk-hai, you have that one Orc that kills Boromir. Chain mail is the heaviest armour they're facing when chasing down the fellowship, yet he still carries a bow that looks heavy to carry and creates that incredible tension sound when he draws it. Which he does slowly.
There's also the thing that that he has no trouble making the arrows go through the armour at a distance, but when he's up close he still draws really hard for his "execution shots".
Do you have any recommendations about films and video games that do olden days warfare better than the lot of them?
legolas is a very strong elf in the books
I actually live in mongolia and learnt some of the martial arts and stuff and knew that mongols use the thumb to pull that hard bow but thanks for doing this video i hope more people watch this
Great review, thanks;)
And I have to add: you do look pretty tough! You're basically a HEMA-verson of Jason Statham, ready for action;)
Cheers!
hey, I've seen some vids of you on this channel and (besides the techical information and entertainment, which I like very much) the beard fashions you very well!
Let it grow a bit, it enhances your credibility as an expert :)
There might be other incentives in play for the lithe / weak in their weapon choice... the increased range of the bow allows a less bulky person more time to dodge / avoid an incoming blow that a buffer type might be able to resist with a shield / armor.
Finally.. I know I'm not the only one thinking about this..
Hello Matt, love your vids!
What kind of recurved bow was that?
Could you elaborate a little more about it? Like, it's uses and how would you carry it from battle and in travel.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and showing your weapons to us.
It is interesting, yeah, this topic. An English Longbow, for example, was something only the strongest and best trained archers in that land could use. Not only that, but it was extremely demanding and painful to use over any decent time period, especially without the right equipment.
The base of the hollywood tought is that if you go in melee you prefer to be the strong guy while if you are "weaker" you prefer to keep your distance from the brawl, and to do that and still partecipate in the fight you need a missile weapon, and that's when the bow comes in
God bless you for doing this video,I almost get heart attacks when watching some movies and cartoons.And it's making people stupid
I agree, i shoot korean style warbows (i got multiple draw weights starting at 40#) and everytime i take somebody to the range with me, they're suprised at how physically taxing sport it is, especially the really macho guys take a significant ego hit. But alot of them have joined me on my warbow journey, and i believe it's a good way to keep oneself fit - lot of suplemental execises are necessary for health of an archer. Now while i can shoot warbows all days, whenever i go out to train with my swordsplay mate, I'm wheezing just minutes into a proper sparing match. So yeah, I'd say that generally, swords need you doing a bit more cardio, while war archery requires a bit more strength training.
I totally agree with what you say, although I also know why they have this image. A sword is often associated with heavy battles, while bows are mostly associated with stealth and asassins. Because people that are stealthy have to be swift and unseen, they cannot be big and muscled people. While if you are going into battle, you (according to the producers) have to put a lot of strength and force into your swings. So you have to be big and muscled. Also I think many people still believe that swords in the medieval times were very heavy. And when they use a bow nowadays, almost everybody can draw one. They don't understand the fact that bows were 60 to 120 pounds and a sword's weight was about the same as the swords that are still being used.
In the Middle Ages, bowmen also stood at the frontline of a legion to be able to hit the enemies from a longer distance before the two legions met, so this really makes sense
This stereotype I suppose holds true in games like The Elder Scrolls (or any western RPG, really).
What you said about Legolas was a poor example, though, considering Legolas actually does use swords - I remember him using two long knives at Helm's Deep. He also used a Rohirric sword at some point. It's just that he's more skilled with a bow. Of course, the second bow he wields is said to have a draw weight of 150 pounds, which seems unlikely for Legolas (unless elves have more strength than humans by default).
That, and elves like him are more durable and almost supernaturally agile, compared to humans. Orlando Bloom also took up the sword in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.
Legolas is strong; the elves are quite strong, despite not looking like they are. Even in the LOTR table RPG, all of the Elve types have a bonus strenght that are similar to the Rohirin's bonus, and the Rohirin are the strongest (physical strength) humans in the scenario.
In Kingdom Come: Deliverence you can't draw heavy bows on start of game, you can use only ridiculously light bows. :-)
Love them keep them coming. :)
Olympic archers usually do not draw 40-50lbs bows.... The recurve styled shooting makes it so, that as little as 25lbs is enough to hit a target at 70-90 metres. It does take fast limbs and some arrow-tweaking, but usually olympic archers don't come above 35. Though it remains personal preference for each archer.
Could you do a short follow up -video regarding the use of crossbows. If the stereotype was correct that anyone could just pick up a bow and use it then why would anyone use a slow and cumbersome crossbow?
Fairly experienced in archery here, and I have got to say draw weight does not matter as much as people like to think. What matters most is how efficient the bow stores and releases energy. I have seen plenty of lower draw weight bows vastly outperform heavier draw weight bows. Your horsebow for example, as interesting as it is, I imagine shoots fairly slow pound per pound, you have those thick heavy limbs with most of the weight at the tips, as well as that unnecessary leather wrapping. As for warbow/longbows being so ridiculously heavy, it was because they had to be. Longbows are very inefficient at storing and releasing energy compared to a recurve bow, so inefficient you can even feel it in the way it draws, they feel dampened and often stack at the end of the draw, and if you slowly let your draw back down without releasing you can feel how weak the bow is at the end of its power stroke, where as a decent recurve will feel nice and springy the entire powerstroke, you will notice little or no stacking at the end of the draw, and the end of the powerstroke will feel just as lively as the beginning. I still love longbows for their simplicity and forgiveness though.
Arrow weight is another matter, too light will mean a little less energy downrange, too heavy means a huge disadvantage in range. You want balance basically, a middle weight arrow. Arrow tuning trumps arrow weight any day, an arrow that flies as straight as possible without wagging and has as little drag from fletching as you can get away is the best solution to energy downrange, or more range in general.
I immediately thought of the film representation of Legolas. You are right though, swords, even the heaviest of them, tend to work well in a gentle hand. The bow requires a rough motion with lots of muscles.
I vaguely remember in "The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe" its the girls who get bows at the end of the book, whereas the boys get swords. This is commonplace in a lot of fantasy fiction - the girls get the bows, not just because this is (incorrectly) perceived as requiring less strength, but also to keep them out of danger and reduce the risk of physical harm.
Question: How did people describe draw weight in more ancient times? Were all bows made to a rough range or were people actually measuring the draw weight even in earlier times?
you don't have to be strong to use a sword but it still requires a lot of muscle to move it for a serious amount of time. I'll never forget when we started sword training in Aikido the teacher had us performing the straight forward strike for 30 minutes. My arms felt sore for 2 weeks. it does require some training to use a sword for a significant amount of time
I've come across other complaints as well, relating to the portrayal of the drawing of the bow, usually shown done with thumb&index finger tips, which is probably not a good idea. I know a hooked thumb was often used, usually with some ring-thimble thing worn.
Wouldn't being stronger/fitter help with all the other elements of sword fighting, such as grappling and using the shield and generaly just not getting as tired?
I agree wholeheartedly with this... except the Orlando bloom in lotr thing. Tolkien describes the elves as lithe and strong, so Orlando bloom, while thin and tall, is still portraying a powerful supernatural being that can handle both bows and swords and any type of weapon really with ease. He most certainly uses swords. But yes, the Keira knightly thing is true.
As an archer I agree you have to be strong to use a bow, but as you mentioned Legolas in LOTR as a thought I'd avoid using mythical creatures as examples, because easy examples can be found for example; denser muscles so they look more slender but have strong muscles. Just a thought, but do agree I've had people struggle with my bow and it's only 65lb draw weight.
I think this perception comes from the images of armored knight and unarmored bowman(typically in imagery from renaissance or much later). The knight looks more bulky due to their armor (especially with plate armor) so the assumption starts that he is more muscular
It's probably to do with stuff like the Conan movies, showing big, burly barbarian types with swords. Maybe that and also the image of the heavy armored knight with his sword. I liked in the first Lord of the Rings, the fighting Uruk Hai, the arrows shot at our heroes and into Borimir, were thick, massive, heavy arrows. And obviously the Uruk Hai were huge.
I am small and thin, I have 165cm and 55kg. I am working in furniture factory so I am used to wear heavy things and bows which has more than 60 lbs are still very heavy and impractical for me, I can draw it ofcourse, but not 100 times in few minutes. For full day shooting 40 lbs is just right for me. So you really need more power for bow than for sword. Ofcourse technique is important too. But I don't think someone who is big and has 100kg is automatically better for heavy bows, but he can use full draw which is good. But even with my 165cm I can draw about 80cm, but aiming with that draw is little complicated for me, 76cm max is much more comfortable for me. But I guess very small people can learn some kind of "ear draw" technique. I think with full life training that ladies from movies can using heavy bows without problem, not super power bows, but that standard cca 70 - 80lbs is possible.
I am really surprised how powerful is that stupid only 40 lbs modern bow. I had homemade wooden bow before with similar power about 40 lbs and modern bow with 40 lbs has much more power than 40 lbs wooden not good bow. But it was small bow, I guess longbows are much more effective.
But for sword you need training too, I tried one and half handed bastard sword and it's realtively light and easy to use, but after few minutes of fencing hands are really tired and muscles stop working. So you need training for both, bow even sword. But you can always grab long sword and use it somehow for short moment, but you definitely can't grab heavy bow and use it.
to weak, to weak is the kings bow -Einar Tambarskjelve to King Olav Trygvason during the battle of Svolder. clearly indicating the need for strength in archery
Do axes and percussion weapons require more strength? They have the weight at the front and rely a lot more on impact force, esp. percussion weapons like hammers and clubs.
I think it may actually be a very old trope, dating back to the ancient Greeks. Think of the mocking directed at Paris the Trojan archer prince. The achievable draw weights on the Mediterranean bows (though not the Scythian composite bows I think) were so low that a weaker man could use them, whereas hoplite panoply required greater strength and stamina, especially the helmet and shield.
Short non-composite bows were still fairly weak in the early medieval era, and of relatively limited effectiveness, unless you took one in the eye like Harold. Later yew war bows and composite bows of course were very nasty.
Thanks. I was just wondering: While you (as you rightly point out) don't have to be especially strong to strike an incapacitating blow with the sword against an unarmoured opponent, would body strength play a greater role in armoured fighting, what with the greater emphasis on "wrestling", overpowering and pinning the opponent?
No. Armor is equaly distributed over body so it doesnt weigh you down. In case of plate armor more so. Only thing that changes is that you hold a sword shorter, for example holding it by one hand at the handle and other one at half the blade, and using it a little bit like a pike, going for vulnerable areas like eyes, groins etc...
Muhamed Husic - Ibrukic I'm not talking about the weight of the armour itself, I'm talking about the nature of armoured fighting. While I'm not especially familiar with its techniques, I have read that it required greater contact, with combatants getting in close and trying to force their opponent into such a position that they could exploit the weak points in the armpits, visor, etc., either by throwing them to the ground or by pinning their arms in place.
My question was whether the necessity of using these techniques might put a stronger combatant at an advantage over a weaker one, to a greater extent than if both combatants were unarmoured.
www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html#.U9-I_fmSzMo
These are the kinds of techniques I'm talking about.
KorKhan89
Yes. You can see the technique I told you about in the lower pictures, holding the blade half lenght for better acuracy
Muhamed Husic - Ibrukic
Any weight, whether armour, clothes or body fat, weighs you down, no matter how evenly distributed it is. The legs still have to carry all the weight when you move them, and the lungs need to draw in all the more oxygen to support the muscles. I used to be extremely skinny, but since my metabolism changed when I turned 25, I have gained 60 pounds of weight over the years, stabilizing at around 90 kgs (180 lbs). It is fairly evenly distributed, and while I do not notice it much in my day-to-day affairs with normal activity, I do notice it very much indeed when doing anything strenuous. Some things are made easier because of the added weight, for example anything that involves pushing (and that includes wrestling), but the body needs more oxygen, and my legs get sore more easily. Though my legs have naturally gotten stronger as I grew heavier.
As to KorKhan's question, the answer is yes, absolutely. The more you use your muscles, the more important strength becomes. And wrestling is absolutely an activity where strength helps a great deal. You do not have to be strong to perform the techniques with the prescribed equipment, no, but you had better not be a weakling against an actual opponent.
How limiting is strength in regards to two handed/larger melee weapons? For example, how small/weak can you be and actually be able to wield a true two handed sword or halberd?
Hey Matt, what is your opinions on the Falcata? I was also wondering your thoughts on the movie Alexander and the accuracy of them battles ?
I don't fully agree with you.
Those who fight with sword are more likely to end fighting only with hands in the melee than the archers, also soldiers in the frontline have to resist to charges and hold the front. It depends of course to what combat we're talking about but I hope you'll get my point in spite of my grammar mistakes. (from France)
SenatorSmeagol Drawing a warbow requires a lot of force to be drawn and be lethal, sword just needs pretty much only a drop on someones neck
I enjoyed the twist in the story. As a writer I can easily imagine a screenwriter falsely concluding that girls shoot the bow while men use the sword. *leaves to reread his current work" lol
Got to agree that using a war bow takes strength and the more strength you have the more powerful the bow you can use effectively. Swords on the other hand can be used with less beef especially if you are using the point.
Once again, excellent common sense analysis. Growing up in a hunting family in the great State of Illinois where the only legal way to hunt a deer is with a bow, I can verify that everything you said about shooting a deer is correct. Our specific family trick was that if you shot a deer at dawn you went to breakfast before trying to track the deer down. Track them right after shooting and they keep running and running... Let them on their own for a bit and they run a little ways and then settle down and take a bit of a nap from the lack of blood and die peacefully near where you shot them.
"You know nothing, Matt Easton!" :p
Does anybody know what brand of bow that is?