btw about armor, i forgot one video
Crossbow with goatfoot and heavy crossbow with windlass against very very crappy aliexpress lamellar from like 10-15 meters.
And guess what - 0 damage to the person behind it.
You have to factor in internal damage. Bruises, haemorrhage, broken bones are all valid types of injuries inflicted on an armoured opponent being shot at. So being dicked by a heavy crossbow, whilst your armour gets a tiny dent, means you're most likely out of breath and bruised heavily underneath. Easily compared to how body injuries occur whilst you get shot at in modern body armour. The armour would certainly save your skin most times 1v1 but imagine getting 3-10 shots whilst you try to charge at an opponent. Also, factor in the speed of cavalry charging in the direction of the missile fire.
You are correct. My post was a hectic mess and I will edit it but my initial point still stands. People ought to educate themselves with the available video material before claiming nonsense they imagined being accurate. I launched at skallagrim or other guys due to the way their earlier content paled in comparison to aforementioned guys or documentaries ( most are weak tho ). Anyways I find people silly for arguing about pulling this and that weight. It's very conclusive that most horsebows ranged below
150lbs or 120lbs even and longbow warbows usually 100-150lbs when we discuss high/late medieval setting. I'd even argue that its the most common draw weight for most periods where archery was utilised heavily. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Parthians, Scythians, Huns, Hyksos or any other cultures relying on archery. It's a simple fact of crossing a certain threshold required to pierce soft body armour which was utilised since human began to do military. People used to be outside and work physically 90% of the time back then. So the average fitness or muscle strength used to be better than ours, even so for women. Try arm wrestling a construction worker if you're not an active guy.