This is great content! Good information in it's proper context! Not just American colonial history but also the history of European warfare of the time and how these two are linked from the perspective of military history.
Thank you so much for this, what a wonderful video. I bring a certain perspective that may be interesting to the sword classification topic. I'm an amateur sword historian, by no means a leading expert, but I've read, studied, and brought to life multiple sword manuals from right around the time period of John Smith's list. I would say the reason people didn't classify swords historically is primarily because its damn hard to learn how to use a sword. In any given time and place there is typically one mastered style, or a collection of similar styles for the same structure of sword. For instance, Cappferro and Fabris in Italy at this time both have fighting systems that use explicitly what we'd call a rapier today and those styles wouldn't work with the basket hilted cutting sword (with no cross guard) that you have here. All that to say, I think when we talk about people in history not having types of swords, we have to bear in mind they weren't sitting down with a katana and a great sword and thinking "which one of these should I use today?". If you were English and you needed a sword I'm guessing you probably got one that was similar in function and style to the other swords around. And if someone like the French had swords thay were totally different, well they probably figured it was only natural. That's just the French (etc.), they're weird after all. Lol. Now, that said, you mention that in the archeological finds there are varying blade thicknesses and sword types found in English settlements and I find that super interesting. I know in later military history (UA-camr LindyBeige has talked about this) people were swapping out sword blades on a guards and handles because they wanted the weight, balance, etc different. And perhaps they intended to use their sword differently than standard training. I wonder how much of that's going on in 1600 Americas. I also wonder if in England at the time they were not as ridgedly adhering to a system as the Italian, Spanish, germanic peoples, etc. were. I bring all this up only to highlight the rich and interesting history around sword types and styles, and to not leave the conversation at the point that we moderns classify things in a way, and context, that people of the past didn't. Although, that is interesting in it's own right.
Fantastic episode!!! I always enjoy when y'all talk about the military aspect of life then. I also have a question. Would it be possible for Native American Arrows to penetrate armor like that? I ask because in the Desoto Chronicles there are accounts apparently on special arrows being made that could bust through armor like that. I However have not had a chance to read my copy of the Chronicle to verify that. I would imagine that if something like that existed other Tribes might have something similar, especially as time went on.
Hi Caleb, good question. "Would it be possible for Native American arrows to penetrate armor like that?" I would say the answer is no. Remember that the plate armour that Brian is displaying has come along in the age of the firearm -- that it is usually pistol proof and could be effective against arquebus shot -- and it took the development of the musket to have a firearm that could more reliably penetrate that armour with a larger bullet. The Powhatan bow and arrows with their various points of bone, stone, or wood would just not have the energy to penetrate that plate armour. The English would even find that outdated European armours like mail shirts and quilted coats were also effective against native arrows and the effectiveness of these armours are related in many of their written accounts.
@@jamesread1607 which makes sense in terms of older armors. Look at the Conquistadors. They have journal entries from the men saying that when some of the mail armors were broken and they couldn’t get replacements, they adopted the local natives armor, being extra thick stiffened quilted overcoats essentially, and it did a perfect job of protecting them from the arrows and such of the natives. Even a few carrying plate armor switched to the quilted armor, for ease of use.
Your research and presentation has been well done in all your videos I've seen but your passion similar to my own is what makes these so enjoyable. You seem like the type of dude that I will talk to about this stuff and think " it's been 15 minutes" but its really been 2 hours.
I recently discovered you guys. It seems criminal to see how few guys you have! I’m fascinated by the use of match locks lasting so long in service. I know there is a cost associated with the use of wheellock or snaphaunce, but the difficulty of maintaining a matchlock in bad weather, or constantly adjusting a slow burning match seem to make it a bad choice in the frontier of Virginia.
Adjusting the slow match is not much of an issue, because the match is carried and managed between the fingers of the left hand and should be fixed in the serpentine only just before firing, then removed from the serpentine and placed back between the left fingers to begin the loading process. No matter the ignition type, the most significant issue with firearms of the period is simply that the gunpowder is hygroscopic and attracts moisture. Musketeers though, would understand how to manage their gunpowder, even developing techniques for drying out spoiled powder. Far from a bad choice, the matchlock was still a relatively new high tech weapon and in the last few decades had replaced the long bow in Europe. As a projectile firing weapon it could send the bullet further, faster and with greater retention of energy in the projectile than anything that would be faced by musketeers, while inexperienced men could easily become proficient with the weapon in a relatively short period of time. What is interesting is that as we consider the martial law period and the colonists as the Virginia Company's soldiers, the matchlock seems to dominate. But as the martial law period ended and the colony transition into a militia structure the snaphaunce grows in popularity.
Sharp looking kit. I am currently a 19th century reenactor and I want to jump back 200 yrs in time. What are good websites to get good gear such as clothing, bandolier, etc
Hi Dave. Here at the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation we are very fortunate to have very talented staff. Except for the sword and the musket, each of the items featured in the video were made within the foundation. The clothing was made by Samantha our wonderful historic clothier, The armour was made by Fred our skilled armourer. Brian even built the bandolier. The 17th century reenactor community is smaller than the 19th century and you may find that you have to search out those that make material culture/reproduction artifacts as commission work, however, two vendors to start with may be Tod's Workshop ( todsworkshop.com/ )in the UK and Darkwood Armory ( www.darkwoodarmory.com/ ) in Laurel, Mississippi. You might also find these two links useful newplimmothgard.org/ready-made%2Fcustom-clothes snowshoemen.com/general-information/sutlers-and-sources/ Hope this helps out!
I'm in the exact same situation. I see your comment is from a year ago. Maybe you're all set now, but I was recently introduced to Sykes Sutlery, if that helps. They have clothing AND muskets+ bandoliers
Phenomenal video! Any good sources for your armament? I know Rifle Shoppe has some good matchlock and snaphaunce kits, but what of the sword and armor?
Thanks for the question. Our armor is made in house -- ua-cam.com/video/EngbsKNQIpI/v-deo.html for swords we have used a few vendors through the years, one being Darkwood Armory. They did our basket hilts -- www.darkwoodarmory.com/
What are the largest swords found in the Virginia Colony? Have there been any Longswords, or Zweihanders typical of the 16th century found? Or are they all single-handed swords?
Nothing like Zweihanders have been found. Swords and sword parts being found are typical of swords in use in England at the end of the 16th century and the early 17th century. The Jamestown Rediscovery Project has found rapier hilts and parts, and basket hilts. historicjamestowne.org/april-2008-2/a-conserved-broadsword-found-last-year-in-a-fort-period-cellar/ historicjamestowne.org/may-2007/sword-hilts-in-the-pit-feature/
I never thought about the reason for muskets shooting such large balls as being a way to defeat armor, that makes a lot of sense, I’ve seen what a brown bess will do to a metal plate before that is heavier and thicker than a breastplate, leaves a huge dent
At the moment we just do not know. It could very well be that he was not armed with a sword, after the loss of his right arm in 1590, as captain of a ship called Little John during a privateering expedition against the Spanish.
i am just noticing that the powder bottles seem to be leather covered. Maybe to reduce noise, or maybe it helps reduce the chance of a spark igniting powder?
The chargers on Brian's bandolier are simply turned wood and not covered with leather. However there are original examples covered in leather. In addition there are examples of chargers made from copper alloy or tinned iron and these are leather covered. And there have been examples of these metal bandolier chargers made from copper alloy turned up in the archeology of the Jamestown Rediscovery project at Historic Jamestowne.
Thank you for your question, and it's not one of the easiest questions to answer, especially as money and the value of money has changed over the last five centuries. We've gone from hard money, to currency backed by commodities, to fiat currency and through the Industrial Revolution. These changes have impacted the value of labor, commodities & goods, money and purchasing power. A very simple answer is that 3 pounds is a handsome amount of money but not rich. Most workers that took wages would have a preference for taking most of their pay “in kind”, as food, clothing, shelter, and then a small amount of coin. Receiving “in kind” pay provided for one's most expensive needs, but unhooked the worker from the market fluctuations of those daily needs and costs. Among the poor workers, a shepherd may be paid 1 pence a day plus food. That shepherd may be tending flocks six days a week, potentially earning in a year a total of 1 pound 6 shillings. A little less than half of 3 pounds sterling. From that income he'll have to pay rents on his smallhold. Need a hatchet? That may cost 26 pence or 26 days of the shepherd's labor at 1 pence a day. A suit of canvas work clothes may be about 7 shillings, or 84 days of labor. A copper kettle to cook in may cost 7 shillings and a knife may cost 4 pence. The shepherd could not afford the whole set of military equipment in this video, and there was not the expectation that they should. The purchase of just the armor or musket would be an incredible burden. If you have not yet seen these videos, check them out - Various systems of measuring weights - ua-cam.com/video/igdzgOqYLDI/v-deo.html English money and it's relation to weights - ua-cam.com/video/DNULMtNp09Y/v-deo.html
Thank you for the question, and it can be a most difficult question to answer. It is not enough to merely use historic inflationary rates to develop comparative values of historic money compared to modern money value. It's not necessarily possible to state that the modern equivalent of the late16th/early-17th century 3£ 9s 6d would be $5000 in the early-21st century. Economies have risen, fallen, and evolved. A historic vs modern comparison does not always take into account individual or household incomes, costs of consumer goods and the cost of living for a household. Nor does it take the modern work life vs historic work life into account as well. In the early 17th century 3£ 9s 6d would be a good, even comfortable example of a per annum income for the middling sorts of social classes of the period and by £10 annum we reach the economic value of the lesser or poorer gentry families. In the 21st century $5000 may be merely the monthly income of a middle class family. In the 16th and 17th centuries workers tended to a preference to take most of their pay in-kind - meaning as food, clothing, and shelter - and then a small amount of coin. This tended to unhook the worker from the market fluctuations of such commodities and costs. A shepherd could expect to earn food and shelter plus 1 pence a day tending to a flock of sheep, 6 days a week . Whereas tradesmen in an urban setting and depending on the in-kind payment might earn 4 pence to 8 pence for a day's work; but that tradesman is not necessarily working everyday. In the autumn a thatcher may employ a poor woman at 1 pence a day, to cut and bundle reeds for roofing. Household servants could expect to receive much of their pay as in-kind and then quarterly receive their coin payment of a few pence to maybe a shilling or two. Considering historic wages, a suit of canvas work clothes may cost 7s 6d or 90 pence and course woolen working clothes may cost 10 shilling or 120 pence (there were 12 pence to a shilling). In the urban setting a gallon of ale or beer may cost about 3 farthing (1 farthing is a quarter of a pence), a pound of cheese or butter may cost a pence each. If one was wanting luxury, sugar would cost about 1 shilling per pound. In comparison, 21st century store branded sugar is about $1.49 for two pounds. But that's not to mean 1 shilling is equal to $1.49. In the early 17th century that 1 shilling for sugar may be several days or even a couple week's wages for workers; but in the 21st century that $1.49 is few seconds or minutes of work. All of this is to say that 3£ 9s 6d for the cost of the equipment discussed in the video is a significant cost, about equal to a yearly income for a middling household. But to say that 17th century 3£ 9s 6d is equal to $5000 in today's 21st century dollars does not truly reflect the values of these amounts in their own times.
@@JYFMuseums Such a well thought out response! Thank you. My guess was the $5000 mark due to what the costs are now for basic modern military equipment in the industrial age. (uniform, helmet, rifle, load bearing equipment, ammo, etc...) From your information listed, it really isn't that simple of an equation by any means.
If we are discussing the years of 1607, 1608 or early-1609, the expectation was to be in conflict with Spain. By the summer of 1609 the English and Powhatan are at war, which lasted until 1614. At the time that John Smith's General History was published along with this list in 1624, the English and Powhatan were two years into their second conflict.
This is great content! Good information in it's proper context! Not just American colonial history but also the history of European warfare of the time and how these two are linked from the perspective of military history.
Absolutely magnificent.
Thank you that was a great video watching him getting prepared at the end was a fantastic idea good 👍
Thanks 👍
Very helpful. Thank you. Looking to expand our impressions/portrayals from ACW to time periods before and after.
We're glad it was helpful!
This was awesome to see and get a break down of a combat kit for regular person back then!
Thank you!
Thankyou very much I'm really fascinated with this little covered era of American history
Thank you so much for this, what a wonderful video.
I bring a certain perspective that may be interesting to the sword classification topic. I'm an amateur sword historian, by no means a leading expert, but I've read, studied, and brought to life multiple sword manuals from right around the time period of John Smith's list. I would say the reason people didn't classify swords historically is primarily because its damn hard to learn how to use a sword. In any given time and place there is typically one mastered style, or a collection of similar styles for the same structure of sword. For instance, Cappferro and Fabris in Italy at this time both have fighting systems that use explicitly what we'd call a rapier today and those styles wouldn't work with the basket hilted cutting sword (with no cross guard) that you have here. All that to say, I think when we talk about people in history not having types of swords, we have to bear in mind they weren't sitting down with a katana and a great sword and thinking "which one of these should I use today?". If you were English and you needed a sword I'm guessing you probably got one that was similar in function and style to the other swords around. And if someone like the French had swords thay were totally different, well they probably figured it was only natural. That's just the French (etc.), they're weird after all. Lol. Now, that said, you mention that in the archeological finds there are varying blade thicknesses and sword types found in English settlements and I find that super interesting. I know in later military history (UA-camr LindyBeige has talked about this) people were swapping out sword blades on a guards and handles because they wanted the weight, balance, etc different. And perhaps they intended to use their sword differently than standard training. I wonder how much of that's going on in 1600 Americas. I also wonder if in England at the time they were not as ridgedly adhering to a system as the Italian, Spanish, germanic peoples, etc. were. I bring all this up only to highlight the rich and interesting history around sword types and styles, and to not leave the conversation at the point that we moderns classify things in a way, and context, that people of the past didn't. Although, that is interesting in it's own right.
Fantastic episode!!! I always enjoy when y'all talk about the military aspect of life then. I also have a question. Would it be possible for Native American Arrows to penetrate armor like that? I ask because in the Desoto Chronicles there are accounts apparently on special arrows being made that could bust through armor like that. I However have not had a chance to read my copy of the Chronicle to verify that. I would imagine that if something like that existed other Tribes might have something similar, especially as time went on.
Hi Caleb, good question.
"Would it be possible for Native American arrows to penetrate armor like that?" I would say the answer is no. Remember that the plate armour that Brian is displaying has come along in the age of the firearm -- that it is usually pistol proof and could be effective against arquebus shot -- and it took the development of the musket to have a firearm that could more reliably penetrate that armour with a larger bullet.
The Powhatan bow and arrows with their various points of bone, stone, or wood would just not have the energy to penetrate that plate armour. The English would even find that outdated European armours like mail shirts and quilted coats were also effective against native arrows and the effectiveness of these armours are related in many of their written accounts.
@@jamesread1607 which makes sense in terms of older armors.
Look at the Conquistadors. They have journal entries from the men saying that when some of the mail armors were broken and they couldn’t get replacements, they adopted the local natives armor, being extra thick stiffened quilted overcoats essentially, and it did a perfect job of protecting them from the arrows and such of the natives.
Even a few carrying plate armor switched to the quilted armor, for ease of use.
Your research and presentation has been well done in all your videos I've seen but your passion similar to my own is what makes these so enjoyable. You seem like the type of dude that I will talk to about this stuff and think " it's been 15 minutes" but its really been 2 hours.
i really enjoy your videos, thanks guys
Our pleasure!
I recently discovered you guys. It seems criminal to see how few guys you have! I’m fascinated by the use of match locks lasting so long in service. I know there is a cost associated with the use of wheellock or snaphaunce, but the difficulty of maintaining a matchlock in bad weather, or constantly adjusting a slow burning match seem to make it a bad choice in the frontier of Virginia.
Adjusting the slow match is not much of an issue, because the match is carried and managed between the fingers of the left hand and should be fixed in the serpentine only just before firing, then removed from the serpentine and placed back between the left fingers to begin the loading process. No matter the ignition type, the most significant issue with firearms of the period is simply that the gunpowder is hygroscopic and attracts moisture. Musketeers though, would understand how to manage their gunpowder, even developing techniques for drying out spoiled powder.
Far from a bad choice, the matchlock was still a relatively new high tech weapon and in the last few decades had replaced the long bow in Europe. As a projectile firing weapon it could send the bullet further, faster and with greater retention of energy in the projectile than anything that would be faced by musketeers, while inexperienced men could easily become proficient with the weapon in a relatively short period of time.
What is interesting is that as we consider the martial law period and the colonists as the Virginia Company's soldiers, the matchlock seems to dominate. But as the martial law period ended and the colony transition into a militia structure the snaphaunce grows in popularity.
Sharp looking kit. I am currently a 19th century reenactor and I want to jump back 200 yrs in time. What are good websites to get good gear such as clothing, bandolier, etc
Hi Dave. Here at the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation we are very fortunate to have very talented staff. Except for the sword and the musket, each of the items featured in the video were made within the foundation. The clothing was made by Samantha our wonderful historic clothier, The armour was made by Fred our skilled armourer. Brian even built the bandolier.
The 17th century reenactor community is smaller than the 19th century and you may find that you have to search out those that make material culture/reproduction artifacts as commission work, however, two vendors to start with may be Tod's Workshop ( todsworkshop.com/ )in the UK and Darkwood Armory ( www.darkwoodarmory.com/ ) in Laurel, Mississippi.
You might also find these two links useful
newplimmothgard.org/ready-made%2Fcustom-clothes
snowshoemen.com/general-information/sutlers-and-sources/
Hope this helps out!
I'm in the exact same situation. I see your comment is from a year ago. Maybe you're all set now, but I was recently introduced to Sykes Sutlery, if that helps. They have clothing AND muskets+ bandoliers
Phenomenal video! Any good sources for your armament? I know Rifle Shoppe has some good matchlock and snaphaunce kits, but what of the sword and armor?
Thanks for the question. Our armor is made in house -- ua-cam.com/video/EngbsKNQIpI/v-deo.html
for swords we have used a few vendors through the years, one being Darkwood Armory. They did our basket hilts -- www.darkwoodarmory.com/
What are the largest swords found in the Virginia Colony? Have there been any Longswords, or Zweihanders typical of the 16th century found? Or are they all single-handed swords?
Nothing like Zweihanders have been found. Swords and sword parts being found are typical of swords in use in England at the end of the 16th century and the early 17th century. The Jamestown Rediscovery Project has found rapier hilts and parts, and basket hilts.
historicjamestowne.org/april-2008-2/a-conserved-broadsword-found-last-year-in-a-fort-period-cellar/
historicjamestowne.org/may-2007/sword-hilts-in-the-pit-feature/
I never thought about the reason for muskets shooting such large balls as being a way to defeat armor, that makes a lot of sense, I’ve seen what a brown bess will do to a metal plate before that is heavier and thicker than a breastplate, leaves a huge dent
Smaller calibers weren’t used until rifles were made
The only reason smaller munitions than 60 caliber even exist today is because they stopped wearing that.
Who made the basket hilt? It's really nice!
Check out Darkwood Armory -- www.darkwoodarmory.com/
We acquired completed basket hilt swords and parts to build swords from them about 20 tears ago.
What arms would my distant relative have carried? Capt Christopher Newport. Interested in the sword style most of all.
At the moment we just do not know. It could very well be that he was not armed with a sword, after the loss of his right arm in 1590, as captain of a ship called Little John during a privateering expedition against the Spanish.
i am just noticing that the powder bottles seem to be leather covered. Maybe to reduce noise, or maybe it helps reduce the chance of a spark igniting powder?
The chargers on Brian's bandolier are simply turned wood and not covered with leather. However there are original examples covered in leather. In addition there are examples of chargers made from copper alloy or tinned iron and these are leather covered. And there have been examples of these metal bandolier chargers made from copper alloy turned up in the archeology of the Jamestown Rediscovery project at Historic Jamestowne.
@@JYFMuseums Thanks! I could swear I saw stitching. Thanjs for your reply. Look forward to more videos!
How much was 3 pounds back then in today's currency
Thank you for your question, and it's not one of the easiest questions to answer, especially as money and the value of money has changed over the last five centuries. We've gone from hard money, to currency backed by commodities, to fiat currency and through the Industrial Revolution. These changes have impacted the value of labor, commodities & goods, money and purchasing power.
A very simple answer is that 3 pounds is a handsome amount of money but not rich. Most workers that took wages would have a preference for taking most of their pay “in kind”, as food, clothing, shelter, and then a small amount of coin. Receiving “in kind” pay provided for one's most expensive needs, but unhooked the worker from the market fluctuations of those daily needs and costs. Among the poor workers, a shepherd may be paid 1 pence a day plus food. That shepherd may be tending flocks six days a week, potentially earning in a year a total of 1 pound 6 shillings. A little less than half of 3 pounds sterling.
From that income he'll have to pay rents on his smallhold. Need a hatchet? That may cost 26 pence or 26 days of the shepherd's labor at 1 pence a day. A suit of canvas work clothes may be about 7 shillings, or 84 days of labor. A copper kettle to cook in may cost 7 shillings and a knife may cost 4 pence. The shepherd could not afford the whole set of military equipment in this video, and there was not the expectation that they should. The purchase of just the armor or musket would be an incredible burden.
If you have not yet seen these videos, check them out -
Various systems of measuring weights - ua-cam.com/video/igdzgOqYLDI/v-deo.html
English money and it's relation to weights - ua-cam.com/video/DNULMtNp09Y/v-deo.html
So, that's about $3.51?
What would 3 pounds, 9 shillings, 6 pence be in modern USD?
$5000+/- I would be guess...?
Thank you for the question, and it can be a most difficult question to answer. It is not enough to merely use historic inflationary rates to develop comparative values of historic money compared to modern money value. It's not necessarily possible to state that the modern equivalent of the late16th/early-17th century 3£ 9s 6d would be $5000 in the early-21st century.
Economies have risen, fallen, and evolved. A historic vs modern comparison does not always take into account individual or household incomes, costs of consumer goods and the cost of living for a household. Nor does it take the modern work life vs historic work life into account as well.
In the early 17th century 3£ 9s 6d would be a good, even comfortable example of a per annum income for the middling sorts of social classes of the period and by £10 annum we reach the economic value of the lesser or poorer gentry families. In the 21st century $5000 may be merely the monthly income of a middle class family.
In the 16th and 17th centuries workers tended to a preference to take most of their pay in-kind - meaning as food, clothing, and shelter - and then a small amount of coin. This tended to unhook the worker from the market fluctuations of such commodities and costs.
A shepherd could expect to earn food and shelter plus 1 pence a day tending to a flock of sheep, 6 days a week . Whereas tradesmen in an urban setting and depending on the in-kind payment might earn 4 pence to 8 pence for a day's work; but that tradesman is not necessarily working everyday. In the autumn a thatcher may employ a poor woman at 1 pence a day, to cut and bundle reeds for roofing. Household servants could expect to receive much of their pay as in-kind and then quarterly receive their coin payment of a few pence to maybe a shilling or two.
Considering historic wages, a suit of canvas work clothes may cost 7s 6d or 90 pence and course woolen working clothes may cost 10 shilling or 120 pence (there were 12 pence to a shilling). In the urban setting a gallon of ale or beer may cost about 3 farthing (1 farthing is a quarter of a pence), a pound of cheese or butter may cost a pence each. If one was wanting luxury, sugar would cost about 1 shilling per pound. In comparison, 21st century store branded sugar is about $1.49 for two pounds. But that's not to mean 1 shilling is equal to $1.49. In the early 17th century that 1 shilling for sugar may be several days or even a couple week's wages for workers; but in the 21st century that $1.49 is few seconds or minutes of work.
All of this is to say that 3£ 9s 6d for the cost of the equipment discussed in the video is a significant cost, about equal to a yearly income for a middling household. But to say that 17th century 3£ 9s 6d is equal to $5000 in today's 21st century dollars does not truly reflect the values of these amounts in their own times.
@@JYFMuseums Such a well thought out response! Thank you.
My guess was the $5000 mark due to what the costs are now for basic modern military equipment in the industrial age. (uniform, helmet, rifle, load bearing equipment, ammo, etc...) From your information listed, it really isn't that simple of an equation by any means.
Gold then was 4.5 pounds then
1900$ now
Say 2000$
Modern equipment
Helmet 500$
Body armour 500
Rifle 1000
2 grand+
Used against Indians or Spanish?
If we are discussing the years of 1607, 1608 or early-1609, the expectation was to be in conflict with Spain. By the summer of 1609 the English and Powhatan are at war, which lasted until 1614. At the time that John Smith's General History was published along with this list in 1624, the English and Powhatan were two years into their second conflict.
Know it’s all army surplus
Wasn’t going to spend that much