Man gets really good at ancient archerey

[Mr Jay]

I disagree.

The Arabs wrote about the crusaders. That they shot alot of arrows in the crusaders on the battlefield, but the arrows just stuck in them. They looked like porcupines, but they still keeped fighting. The also complained that the crusaders could shoot down the horses of Arabs with there I assume long bows and crossbows.

In the video you also see that the arrows get stuck in the chainmail.

Crusaders are OP.

They need to be nerfed.

 

[Dalarna3]

It takes years of practice to become a skilled archer, firearms and crossbows required less training to use effectively. There was also an economic advantage to switching to firearms as as it was far cheaper to produce musket balls than arrows. I've also read that the blast from a firearm had a significant effect on morale in a battle, encouraging the soldier firing the weapon and demoralizing the enemy.

The other thing I remember reading about is how bows and arrows powerful enough to pierce armor are more expensive than those that are not. And then one throws in the training necessary for the higher draw-power bows. Firearms provided a much cheaper way to penetrate armor. The average peasant could be trained in two weeks to not just wield a weapon effectively, but also one that could kill a knight that had trained his entire life for battle.

Of course, what really spurred my question was the use of firearms in situations where the firearm users were outnumbered, such as in the Americas.