Who was in the wrong here?

Who was in the wrong here?

Attached: muh arrows.png (1544x725, 1.39M)

French propaganda, Lindybeige is infallible

How are we supposed to know without more information?

Both of them claim "master armourer" and such, but we have no info about the steel used, tempering etc.

I'd lean towards trusting Lindy more purely because I have a hard time believing someone can be a master longbow archer, armourer AND arrowsmith all by himself. I'm more inclined to trust 3 different people applying their specializations, but then again I have no idea who the archer in Lindys video actually is, I only know that the armorer is extremely skilled and legit as I've had contact with him personally.

Your rather trust a dancing instructor than an actual world record holding longbow archer?

Lindy

dude that armor is like top notch though

This has been debated to death but answer is very simple: it depends on the quality of steel, which was often shoddy in that time.
It depends on the distance.
However, arrows can't penetrate a full armor set, which often included plate, mail, and gambeson beneath it all.

>appeal to authority

>heh, I don't trust these fancy pants oncologists saying I need a simple procedure to get a malignant melanoma removed within days due to the risk of it progressing deeper and entering the blood, who decided years of med school and experience gives them authority over what's right and wrong, that's an appeal to authority you see, I'm going to try herbal cancer cures instead

they're both right. because history is a collection of lies. and lindy's lies, are more interesting. And hence, with more followers, are more right.

It is debated to death. It's complicated because you have to choose both what a "bow" is and what "armor" is.
The "english" "warbow" actually has so many myth attached to it, yet the only earliest historical objects we have of them are from the sinking of the Mary Rose. Armour from knights was also varied in construction depending of the time and the place and the wealth of the man wearing the armor.
Also even if you shoot an arrow and don't see a penetration it would take shooting a dude wearing the armor to know what he feels, if he's bruised or feel any trauma.

Personally I doubt the longbow was able to harm french men-at-arms ; Not that the longbow was useless. It still killed horses, wounded them, blinded them, slowed their advance, broke their formation, and had a great psychological effect that is proven by what the french wrote in their chronicles.

It was not superior to the crossbow however, especially as the crossbow's lower rate of fire is mitigated by the fact that crossbowmen were accompanied by a pavesier (A shield-bearer) and a valet (Who reloaded their weapon, increasing their fire output).

>well made plate armour
>not all plate armour

Clearly neither of them are in the wrong. Not all plate armour is well made.

> Heh, I'm going to prove that guy completely right by showing that everybody, no matter what their experience with a subject is, is inclined to provide evidence that their stance is correct. I'm going to do this by using a situation in which doctors diagnose a disease with evidence they collected during your visit rather than simply saying you have cancer and you have to believe the doctor because he's a doctor

The fallacy is when the authority doesnt have any authority on the subject in question.

Otherwise its just called specialization, something Most People understood by the time agriculture was invented.

Lindy is not the one who set up that test, or the man who made the armour, or the man who made the arrow, or the man shooting the bow. He's just the uploader. He could be a soccermom who wanted to record it for her kid, test would still be the same.

As stated, we can't take either example at face value without a great deal more information, we have no idea what steel was used for the armor in Strettons test, and looking at it from that picture it doesn't look historical, it's too flat and not domed enough, but that could just be a bad picture. The reason I'm more inclined to trust the test Lindy uploaded is because I know the armourer and thus know he wouldn't use shitty steel or make shitty armour, and because I have a hard time believing Stretton is a master in all those things.

lindybeige
lindybeige is wrong persistently, but in a way that he doesn't necesarily "lie" just extrapolates way WAY farther than he is qualified to do
seriously in one video he thinks he's a geologist, the next he's a physician
he need to stick to british tanks

>Shooting from this close
Result dismissed.

>appeal to authority

As stated, we can't take either example at face value without a great deal more information, we have no idea what steel was used for the armor in Strettons test, and looking at it from that picture it doesn't look historical, it's too flat and not domed enough, but that could just be a bad picture. The reason I'm more inclined to trust the test Lindy uploaded is because I know the armourer and thus know he wouldn't use shitty steel or make shitty armour, and because I have a hard time believing Stretton is a master in all those things.

>Result dismissed.
how so?

Alot of 16th century armour could stop musket balls traveling at far higher speeds than a arrow from a heavy bow, but then you also have to consider the weight of the arrow and the fact that the arrowhead is pointed and musket balls are round.

But I would probably land on the side of 'The effects of the heavy bow is greatly exagerated'.

Attached: 4fc95bbaa035fa6b55c9a587bcf4aabc.jpg (640x480, 100K)

That's the armor piece of a chad lol.

the english longbowman had access to the medieval equivalent of the sabot armor piercing shell of our modern era, hence why the french knights fell afoul of those famed yeoman on so many occasions

>clearly a 17th century or later piece