>>52374
The video argues that bows were a weapon to harass the enemy, to force them into action (an early charge for example) or withdrawal more than a weapon that used to kill (which were the crossbows). Bows were used throughout the whole battle.
He also claims. Also firing is quite tiring for the bowmen, so if not in the practical tests done recently they probably did not fire in rapid succession. He mentions the difficulty of supplying that many arrows too.
I think what isn't mentioned in the video (and which does not contribute to the individual rate of fire discussion much) is the importance of volleys, that archers and crossbowmen firing together a large number of missiles. Think of the recollection of the Persian incursions into the old Hellas. How it was noted that their arrows darkened the sky.
As for the ammo supply. There is some data how much arrows were fired by the Parthians at Carrhae. A lot ofc, brought by thousands of pack animals (I think they used camels for that). All right the Persia was larger military machine than Medieval England, but there was will they took enough arrows.

>They were used by the English in conflicts other than the 100 years was as well
Umm, those skirmishes barely larger than the clashes of football firms of '80s are don't count. I don't even know how are they part of military history at all.

Firerarms made pretty much any bows obsolete. The loud noises are better for posturing.