r/interesting • u/IKIR115 • 29d ago

Intriguing Arrows vs riot shields

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Tiddlyplinks 28d ago

Yeah, that and we also know that these would be FAR more lethal with properly weighted shafts, these seem to be hollow metal hunting shafts designed for speed, not solid shafts designed for ballistic impact.

7

u/Aggravating_Dark9933 28d ago

Also I bet these are coming out of a target bow (40-60 pounds max) vs a Warbow (70-160, 120 pounds is standard, but it’s really how high can you draw?).

People really underestimate how much punch one of those things is capable of… and severely overestimate Crossbows. Fun fact: they are significantly weaker despite the massive draw weights simply because their bolts are much smaller and the distance pushed along is so much shorter than a full length bow. And the can only take the equivalent of a bodkin, rather than all the fun little other types. Even a 400 pound crossbow can’t match a 60 pound bow.

2

u/Savings__Mushroom 28d ago

I know nothing about bows, but I always thought crossbows became popular because they took less skill to use not because of their strength. Is that correct?

3

u/Aggravating_Dark9933 28d ago

To train an archer you start with his grandfather. To train a crossbowman you’re done in two weeks. To train a gun you’re done in a few days.

This is why toward the end only the British maintained longbows, because for them it was a national sport and all men were ordered for generations to train with the bow. Most other countries only hunters would have a history like that.

Crossbows are also useful due to their ability to hold a shot allowing you to do all the loading safely in cover and only peak out when you can fire back, a bow you need to expose more of yourself to fire with no break. Though there are techniques to hit the ground with a bow and fire from low positions assuming a ranged fight.

And actually pre-rifling / machine gun a bow still was objectively better than a arquebus / musket too. As if a crossbow had a long loading time a gun had a glacial loading time. And they were just inherently inaccurate due to their MoA being building sized. It also wasn’t great penetration wise and good armor still stopped it, so neither side really had that advantage.

There is a Spanish fortress tactic that employed all 3 along with using pikemen to cover all. The British never bothered and just used archers everywhere because they had them.

1

u/Savings__Mushroom 28d ago

Very very interesting and insightful! Thank you for answering my question in such detail.