MONSTROUS CROSSBOW, what could go wrong?

Jason Kingsley, the Modern Knight, investigates a medieval 1000lbs draw weight siege crossbow and finds out what can go very wrong! #medieval #crossbow #weapon

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[marcusc]

There is an anecdote in Poland about a medieval reconstruction group who tried to make a siege crossbow out of a leaf spring and ended up overpenetrating through their target into some dude's car outside the grounds

[Equiluxe]

When I was 15 I made a cross bow from a three and a half ton truck spring, it was so heavy i had to fire it from the workshop vice, I used a piece of torsion bar from an old Ford car for the bolt. To draw the bow required a hydraulic ram. I only ever fired it the once as my parents put a stop to my experiments because on the first test fire it put the bolt right through the nine inch thick brick wall of the workshop.

[farpointgamingdirect]

My wife bought me a t-shirt that reads, "Crossbows don't kill people; Quarrels kill people". Very nice gift for a history buff!

[simon-pierrelussier]

45° is optimal range in a vacuum, or no drag. The more drag there is, the lower the angle is for optimal range. A baseball is at about 35° and with the size of the fletching, I wouldn't be surprised if your bolt has more drag than a baseball. Finally, the angle of attack the bolt has through the air due to the balance (or lack of) has a large effect too.

[genf]

The primary battlefield advantage of the crossbow is that it doesn't require very much training to use. An individual longbowman would be many times more lethal than an individual arbelast under identical conditions. Becoming a longbowman, however, required unusual talent and years of intense training. On the other hand, you could take some young man off the street, give him a crossbow and put him through about a month's worth of basic training, and you'd have a reasonably effective soldier. And if you do this with 1, 000 young men, all taking cover behind battlements or covering each other as they reloaded, you could field a formidable fighting force in a very short amount of time.

[SamBrownBaudot]

For how many shots you're getting, I think you have to take the name as a cue: It's a siege crossbow. It's a thing you take pot-shots with while you're waiting for days, trying to starve the opponent into submission. That's why the refire rate is so thoroughly sacrificed. You're hanging out in a trench, keeping your eye open for one of the enemy to poke their heads out from behind cover. Just one of these moving in the trenches around a castle under siege and the defenders have to be careful about showing themselves.

Or for the folks on the castle wall, likewise, this is another weapon that's more nimble than a ballista, that you can sneak around to different positions around the ramparts and give attackers a reason to stay further back.

That's my guess: A device like this isn't so much ABOUT the open battlefield. It's about making your opponent make hard choices or take stupid risks during the long weeks of a siege. Hence the name, "siege crossbow". That's why the slow, finicky reload time is an acceptable trade-off.

[virglibrsaglove]

I'm so glad you didn't scrap the video. You're right, things do go wrong. And it was nice to see the accuracy including all that could have gone into these breaking down. Besides, it was a lovely video to look at. Gorgeous countryside, attractive choice of cloths, well spoken, very nice cinematography, and cool looking weapon. Overall a very nice video. 👍

[VieneLea]

That's why this is my favourite history channel. The most unapologetic historical tests and experiences shining light on history.

[obscurazone]

It "feels" like these would be used more like a gun, more like a snipers weapon in a direct, fairly close range. The showering down attack from above in a full on blitz fashion, is obviously far better suited to arrows in terms of efficiency - and cost! But the deadly affect of the bolt and set up time required feels like it would be way better suited for picking people off in closer ranges. Great vid!

[inq]

A group of my friends did some similar tests about 4 years ago. Your results seem to be a little low but not that far off. We were getting maximum ranges of about 150 yards with most being about 140 and after a day we were reliably getting 4 shots in a minute, just under 20 seconds to reload. We also had 2 major malfuntions from 10 bows and at least twice as many minor issues over the day.

[hamnchee]

We've all heard the medieval battlefield wisdom of the crossbowman: "never let your windlass fall funnily".

[simon-pierrelussier]

10 days after this video was uploaded, Tod's workshop did a nearly identical test, but using more rigorous measuring (constant 45° angle and using a range finder) and using bolts of different weight. The 93g bolt went 219 yards and the 60g bolt went 238 yards. So, yeah, the 200-250m range is absolutely on point. Specially since 45° angle isn't nearly optimal for maximum range.

[timothyissler]

Okay, the crossbow was cool and the "what could go wrong" discussion was informative, but I want that leather vest, cause that looks great.

[beswick]

I suppose another reason why this is a "siege" crossbow then is that if you're in a castle, or indeed attacking one, you are probably not doing it from the open. You'll be hiding behind a merlon or in a tower or behind a palisade to load and if something does break you'd want to have a few spare crossbows on hand just in case.

[CBGBBB]

LOTR would have been a lot funnier if Legolas has a 1000 lb crossbow.

[PunchesCouches]

I thought this was going to be the medieval equivalent to a .50 BMG exploding in your face.

[catranger]

4:19 He's winding in the wrong direction because the draw rope is rubbing on the metal bar. If he simply winds in the opposite direction it will wind easier.

[archangel]

I absolutely loved this episode. I’m a novice Archer who’s been getting more and more into archery and being able to see this type of medieval crossbow was very cool.

[mikurusagawa]

Tod from Tod's workshop tested his heavy crossbow some years ago and he actually got around 200 meters when shooting for range

[Ostinat]

So glad you didn't scrap this one! I'd love to see a follow-up video focusing on how reliable (or not) these things really were and especially how that reliability would compare to early firearms. The unreliability of early firearms gets discussed a lot, I think with the implication that alternatives like the crossbow were much more reliable. After watching this I can't help but wonder if perhaps the difference is significantly smaller than commonly believed, or if firearms were actually MORE reliable than a monster crossbow like this (the only comparable infantry weapon in terms of range, power, and ease of use that I can think of) over the course of a long battle. I don't think I've ever actually seen an in-depth look at this reliability angle and if/how it affected the adoption of firearms.