Really grateful for the host letting Matt give long-form answers withouth interrupting. It really ups the quality of the content. Wouldn't have visited this channel if it weren't for the choice of guest.
23:30 "(...) Gaudy contrasting colors. And very often they would specifically NOT color match things." This is why I had my HEMA protection gear made with a gold and blue jacket, and red and green padded pants. :)
From contemporary works, the sword was used quite a bit up until the middle/late medieval period. For example, William Marshal's biographer describes him as using his sword quite a bit. However, its also quite clear that the sword was probably the third most important skill of a knight after couched lancing and horsemanship. The popularity in hooked polearms seems to correlate roughly with knights adding more plates to their armor. This makes sense as the hook was an effective way to pull a plate armored warrior from his saddle and, once grounded a killing blow could be delivered. This strategy is described in by many contemporaries and it makes sense. I do think the sword remain popular for mounted knights, due to its ease of wield from horseback and its reach. However, amongst dismounted knights we started to see more polaxes and other such two-handed weapons.
Thanks Matt - You just caused me to realise WHY the Spanish 'Conquistador' metal hats were the shape they were A low velocity bullet's more likely to skate off a helmet which looks like a pointy ship's prow than one which looks like Endevour's 🤔
An excellent session by a brilliant true historian, I say "true" because Matt researches primary sources and actually experiments within his field of significant expertise!
Absolutely loved this, talk about the ancient sling! It's hard to find information about it, I would love to know more about the historical facts regarding the slings
The way I look at sword and armour affordability would be car and house, respectively. Some people can only afford a run down apartment, others a mansion on the shore. Some people can only afford a rusty chevy, others a Ferrari. But go back far enough in history and cars are so rare that only the rich could afford them. No idea if that's right, but that's how I see it. 🤔
I disagree a bit regarding handheld guns because in the Hussite Wars handheld guns were featured prominently & too big success by the hussites & Jan Zizka. Then we have the black army by Mathias Corvinus & his use of arquebuses
The Hussites succeeded because of their mobile fortification use, not because of their handguns - which were greatly outnumbered by crossbows. Likewise in the Black army, handguns were very much in the minority. It's wasn't until the 16th century that firearms became game changing, and even then, it was initially only from behind defensive positions: pikemen were still the main offensive arm for a very long time.
In Finland in medieval churches fist room is called asehuone (weapons room) so even in periferia weapons are so common that there must be regulations of those. Ok we were on borders between katholic and ordotox churces and we baltic sea was like it is nowadays a boiling gaultron of troubles. Vitali brotherood and grusader knights and Hansa and danes and swedes and before mongols northern silkroad going thru.
Any Battle of Agincourt analysis has to take into account that although the French knights were well covered against the longbow, their horses were less protected. Any info on horse armour Matt?
Horse armour was not that common and most knights/men-at-arms would've not had barding. The ones who did would've had principally leather, with only a minority having something like mail. Plate barding in 1415 would've been exceedingly rare even among people with barding.
The cavalry charge was not the decisive portion of the battle at Agincourt though. The main French battle line advanced on foot after the initial disastrous cavalry charge.
The French had learned at Crecy and other earlier battles that cavalry charges against archers behind wooden stakes was a recipe for disaster, so they looked to other plans. The English archers traditionally deployed sharpened wooden stakes in front, exactly to protect from a cavalry charge. At Agincourt most of the French army fought on foot as a result, but there was a cavalry attack which was supposed to flank around the sides of the English army. This did not work because of the land chosen by Henry V, and that is partly why we have this scene in Shakespeare of the French cavalry attacking the English baggage/camp. Horse armour was a thing, but was expensive and restrictive for the horse, reducing their speed and increasing the amount of time it took to deliver a charge. That said, the French DID use armoured cavalry (Italian mercenaries) later on, against English archers, to great effect. It seems that barded/armoured-horse cavalry was highly effective against archers, but it was a huge and expensive resource to muster.
Warhammers are absolutely not a go-to weapon when fighting on foot and we don't see them carried by footsoldiers almost ever - nor do we have sources implying they were popular picks even for knights when on foot.
I do not quite like the comparison of swords to pistols. A pistol is in the modern army not all too important - some armies don't standard issue pistols at all and there's rarely a situation in which a pistol serves better than a rifle. This is absolutely not the case with swords in medieval combat, of which all available sources tells us that they were expected to be used in more or less any engagement.They might be secondary weapons in that they're usually not what you go into the fight holding but regardless the expectation that you will lose/break/drop your primary arm and draw your sword is essentially always there without fail. Not only that, but the fighting getting so intense as to breaking your backup weapons is also expected. Knights usually carry two swords (one on the person and one on the saddle) and Pietro Monte suggests that on top of this also carrying two maces. Juan Quijada de Reayo in _Doctrina del Arte de la Cavallería_ shares his weapon progression preference which goes lance > estoc > arming sword > mace > dagger (with the statement that you move on to the next weapon when the previous breaks). This is why soldiers are almost invariably required to come armed with swords in equipment statutes of the time. They're expected to need them. That is why, if I am to give a modern analogue I'd call a polearm something like an MBT and a sword something like an IFV. Both are necessary as they both serve different roles and neither is more important than the other as they both contribute to a whole doctrine of engagement.
Yes swords are more comparable to carbines or assault rifles. Most modern soldiers don’t rely on ARs as their primary weapon either, even in the infantry it’s typically AR + role specific weapon/equipment. I don’t understand why you want to compare hand weapons and vehicles though.
@@fridrekr7510 mostly because I couldn't think of a better comparison, and imo the comparison fits on a different scale with the same underlying principle of utilizing several tools for the job.
Could archers shoot through armour? Yes. Mail is armour and is extremely vulnerable to archers. Plate armour on the other hand? Much different proposition. Arm and leg plate absolutely could be and was pierced by arrows. Breastplates and helmets on the other hand? Absolutely NOT. It literally took a modern 131 lb draw weight compound bow to punch through a replica 15th century cuirass. That was done earlier this year. A 160 lb longbow absolutely could not have done that.
I'm pretty sure that this is a clickbait title. Swords are usually a primary weapon in the sense of being a generic default melee weapon. Other weapons however will be used as a primary weapon taking its place where a specialised solutions is desired. This depends a lot on what you mean by primary. It's a default weapon and a fall back.
Host looks so disengaged and like he's going to fall asleep.... Seems like he just wanted short simple answers from Matt.... Which isn't how Matt is. 😂
I think he looks absolutely engaged but still having a time restraint and having to do his job... I personally believe he had ten myths to debunk, but they ended up on five :)
I saw the host nodding, smiling, laughing, and raising his eyebrows quite often. His reactions mirrored my own, often. Perhaps what you are picking up on is that he appears to be watching a monitor below his camera, which means that we see a bit more of his eyelids than usual, and unfortunately that could be perceived as him becoming drowsy.
The idea that armor is better distributed than a backpack is pretty suspect. Certainly armor was designed to be as mobile as possible for a given level of protection, and that is largely done by putting as much of the weight as possible onto the waist. A well fitted backpack does the same thing, but weight on your forearms and on your feet is at the end of a lever arm and is very tiring, and armor has to deal with that where a backpack doesn't. Compare going for a run with a 5lb weight belt vs with 2.5lb weight around each ankle. If I had to march with 70lbs of kit, I'd rather it be in a good pack than distributed in a good suit of armor. An ill-fitting pack would be worse than well fitted armor, and ill-fitted armor would be the worst of all.
Modern armoured combat, such as seen in bohurt (eg. HMB, Battle of the Nations etc) forbids thrusts. Thrusts are the main way of killing armoured opponents, but of course if you forbid thrusts for modern sporting and safety reasons you will not see spears, which mainly thrust. Swords used in a historically correct way are used almost entirely differently to what is seen in bohurt, where the objective is really just to bash the armour and throw the person on the ground to get them out of the competition.
They use swords because swords can easily be made safe, compared to spears, poleaxes, halbers, or even hand axes and maces. Don’t draw too much from modern sporting combat.
I disagree about swords. If you wearing full plate armor sword is better. Is more wieldy than spear. Since already wear full plate don’t need keep distance with spear. Heck you can grab spears with gauntlet. If you archer run out of arrows will you have a spear? No likely have sword.
Not really... when mounted as cavalry, it's going to be a lance. Sword is too small to do the big smashy stabby charge thing from horseback. And on foot, it's probably going to be a poleaxe, better for dealing with others like you in full plate. Sure, pull out the sword for less armored folks.
A fun chat! Thanks for having me on.🤘
Really grateful for the host letting Matt give long-form answers withouth interrupting. It really ups the quality of the content. Wouldn't have visited this channel if it weren't for the choice of guest.
Always great to have Matt Easton! 🗡🛡
Here from Matt's social media. Glad to see Times Radio History have him on.
23:30 "(...) Gaudy contrasting colors. And very often they would specifically NOT color match things."
This is why I had my HEMA protection gear made with a gold and blue jacket, and red and green padded pants. :)
Captain Context strikes again! Bravo
Matt Easton is everywhere recently it's great
From contemporary works, the sword was used quite a bit up until the middle/late medieval period. For example, William Marshal's biographer describes him as using his sword quite a bit. However, its also quite clear that the sword was probably the third most important skill of a knight after couched lancing and horsemanship.
The popularity in hooked polearms seems to correlate roughly with knights adding more plates to their armor. This makes sense as the hook was an effective way to pull a plate armored warrior from his saddle and, once grounded a killing blow could be delivered. This strategy is described in by many contemporaries and it makes sense. I do think the sword remain popular for mounted knights, due to its ease of wield from horseback and its reach. However, amongst dismounted knights we started to see more polaxes and other such two-handed weapons.
Please Continue like this. Wonderful.Maybe more graphic examples.
Thanks Matt - You just caused me to realise WHY the Spanish 'Conquistador' metal hats were the shape they were
A low velocity bullet's more likely to skate off a helmet which looks like a pointy ship's prow than one which looks like Endevour's 🤔
An excellent session by a brilliant true historian, I say "true" because Matt researches primary sources and actually experiments within his field of significant expertise!
Captain Context!
Why didn't you use your great wireless mic, Matt!
Matt is the man, always love to get his wisdom.
Absolutely loved this, talk about the ancient sling!
It's hard to find information about it, I would love to know more about the historical facts regarding the slings
theres actually a good channel on ancient slinging
Read Jean Froissart for examples of slingers in medieval warfare. They saw use in large numbers & had some success.
A spear is like Garand in WW2. The sword like Tommy gun. Or for Brits, Lee Enfield and Sten. Both spear and sword had roles.
The way I look at sword and armour affordability would be car and house, respectively. Some people can only afford a run down apartment, others a mansion on the shore. Some people can only afford a rusty chevy, others a Ferrari. But go back far enough in history and cars are so rare that only the rich could afford them.
No idea if that's right, but that's how I see it. 🤔
16:36 looks like the crossbowstring will lob off his thumb when he looses the bolt
Many campaigns in Scandinavia and the Baltic region were fought during winter, so you could traverse frozen rivers instead of undeveloped roads.
I love both these channels 🙏
Matt Easton GOAT ;)
I disagree a bit regarding handheld guns because in the Hussite Wars handheld guns were featured prominently & too big success by the hussites & Jan Zizka. Then we have the black army by Mathias Corvinus & his use of arquebuses
The Hussites succeeded because of their mobile fortification use, not because of their handguns - which were greatly outnumbered by crossbows. Likewise in the Black army, handguns were very much in the minority. It's wasn't until the 16th century that firearms became game changing, and even then, it was initially only from behind defensive positions: pikemen were still the main offensive arm for a very long time.
Matt: "lets look at medieval art"
The show: *shows a 19th century painting*
"How do you know he's a King?" "Well, he's not covered in mud"
In Finland in medieval churches fist room is called asehuone (weapons room) so even in periferia weapons are so common that there must be regulations of those. Ok we were on borders between katholic and ordotox churces and we baltic sea was like it is nowadays a boiling gaultron of troubles. Vitali brotherood and grusader knights and Hansa and danes and swedes and before mongols northern silkroad going thru.
Really interesting.
So the Green Knight was a myth. It would have been the Red / Green / Yellow Knight who kept his head throughout the battle.
Any Battle of Agincourt analysis has to take into account that although the French knights were well covered against the longbow, their horses were less protected. Any info on horse armour Matt?
Horse armour was not that common and most knights/men-at-arms would've not had barding. The ones who did would've had principally leather, with only a minority having something like mail. Plate barding in 1415 would've been exceedingly rare even among people with barding.
The cavalry charge was not the decisive portion of the battle at Agincourt though. The main French battle line advanced on foot after the initial disastrous cavalry charge.
The French had learned at Crecy and other earlier battles that cavalry charges against archers behind wooden stakes was a recipe for disaster, so they looked to other plans. The English archers traditionally deployed sharpened wooden stakes in front, exactly to protect from a cavalry charge. At Agincourt most of the French army fought on foot as a result, but there was a cavalry attack which was supposed to flank around the sides of the English army. This did not work because of the land chosen by Henry V, and that is partly why we have this scene in Shakespeare of the French cavalry attacking the English baggage/camp. Horse armour was a thing, but was expensive and restrictive for the horse, reducing their speed and increasing the amount of time it took to deliver a charge. That said, the French DID use armoured cavalry (Italian mercenaries) later on, against English archers, to great effect. It seems that barded/armoured-horse cavalry was highly effective against archers, but it was a huge and expensive resource to muster.
Genoese crossbowmen would stake their pavise shield down and fire from behind it.
Well, Thor used a hammer not a sword...
Don`t wear armour in a Aussie Summer mate
Metal on stick is the best.
Looks like you used that sword on your hair
Daggers, poleaxe and warhammer was the go to weapon when fighting on foot
Correction- dagger is backup weapon, not primary pick.
Warhammers are absolutely not a go-to weapon when fighting on foot and we don't see them carried by footsoldiers almost ever - nor do we have sources implying they were popular picks even for knights when on foot.
I do not quite like the comparison of swords to pistols. A pistol is in the modern army not all too important - some armies don't standard issue pistols at all and there's rarely a situation in which a pistol serves better than a rifle.
This is absolutely not the case with swords in medieval combat, of which all available sources tells us that they were expected to be used in more or less any engagement.They might be secondary weapons in that they're usually not what you go into the fight holding but regardless the expectation that you will lose/break/drop your primary arm and draw your sword is essentially always there without fail. Not only that, but the fighting getting so intense as to breaking your backup weapons is also expected. Knights usually carry two swords (one on the person and one on the saddle) and Pietro Monte suggests that on top of this also carrying two maces. Juan Quijada de Reayo in _Doctrina del Arte de la Cavallería_ shares his weapon progression preference which goes lance > estoc > arming sword > mace > dagger (with the statement that you move on to the next weapon when the previous breaks).
This is why soldiers are almost invariably required to come armed with swords in equipment statutes of the time. They're expected to need them. That is why, if I am to give a modern analogue I'd call a polearm something like an MBT and a sword something like an IFV. Both are necessary as they both serve different roles and neither is more important than the other as they both contribute to a whole doctrine of engagement.
Or swords as Carbine/assault rifle and Polearm as MMG or mortar.
Yes swords are more comparable to carbines or assault rifles. Most modern soldiers don’t rely on ARs as their primary weapon either, even in the infantry it’s typically AR + role specific weapon/equipment. I don’t understand why you want to compare hand weapons and vehicles though.
@@fridrekr7510 mostly because I couldn't think of a better comparison, and imo the comparison fits on a different scale with the same underlying principle of utilizing several tools for the job.
Your analysis is so good actually
Could archers shoot through armour? Yes.
Mail is armour and is extremely vulnerable to archers. Plate armour on the other hand? Much different proposition. Arm and leg plate absolutely could be and was pierced by arrows. Breastplates and helmets on the other hand? Absolutely NOT. It literally took a modern 131 lb draw weight compound bow to punch through a replica 15th century cuirass. That was done earlier this year. A 160 lb longbow absolutely could not have done that.
I'm pretty sure that this is a clickbait title. Swords are usually a primary weapon in the sense of being a generic default melee weapon. Other weapons however will be used as a primary weapon taking its place where a specialised solutions is desired. This depends a lot on what you mean by primary. It's a default weapon and a fall back.
Host looks so disengaged and like he's going to fall asleep.... Seems like he just wanted short simple answers from Matt.... Which isn't how Matt is. 😂
I think he looks absolutely engaged but still having a time restraint and having to do his job... I personally believe he had ten myths to debunk, but they ended up on five :)
I saw the host nodding, smiling, laughing, and raising his eyebrows quite often. His reactions mirrored my own, often. Perhaps what you are picking up on is that he appears to be watching a monitor below his camera, which means that we see a bit more of his eyelids than usual, and unfortunately that could be perceived as him becoming drowsy.
What do you mean? Matt is as good at short videos as Drachinifel is at keeping five-minute guides to five minutes.
The idea that armor is better distributed than a backpack is pretty suspect. Certainly armor was designed to be as mobile as possible for a given level of protection, and that is largely done by putting as much of the weight as possible onto the waist. A well fitted backpack does the same thing, but weight on your forearms and on your feet is at the end of a lever arm and is very tiring, and armor has to deal with that where a backpack doesn't. Compare going for a run with a 5lb weight belt vs with 2.5lb weight around each ankle. If I had to march with 70lbs of kit, I'd rather it be in a good pack than distributed in a good suit of armor. An ill-fitting pack would be worse than well fitted armor, and ill-fitted armor would be the worst of all.
as always presenter has a face like he's about to fall asleep
When I watch modern armored combat I see more swords than spears.
I think that's because it's safer to use swords and modern people are more risk-adverse. Not that that's a bad thing.
Modern armoured combat, such as seen in bohurt (eg. HMB, Battle of the Nations etc) forbids thrusts. Thrusts are the main way of killing armoured opponents, but of course if you forbid thrusts for modern sporting and safety reasons you will not see spears, which mainly thrust. Swords used in a historically correct way are used almost entirely differently to what is seen in bohurt, where the objective is really just to bash the armour and throw the person on the ground to get them out of the competition.
They use swords because swords can easily be made safe, compared to spears, poleaxes, halbers, or even hand axes and maces. Don’t draw too much from modern sporting combat.
I disagree about swords. If you wearing full plate armor sword is better. Is more wieldy than spear. Since already wear full plate don’t need keep distance with spear. Heck you can grab spears with gauntlet. If you archer run out of arrows will you have a spear? No likely have sword.
An archers primary weapon is a bow. The sword is their backup weapon.
@ when run out of arrows do they not join battle in another role?
Not really... when mounted as cavalry, it's going to be a lance. Sword is too small to do the big smashy stabby charge thing from horseback. And on foot, it's probably going to be a poleaxe, better for dealing with others like you in full plate. Sure, pull out the sword for less armored folks.
@ when off horse not using lance. In fact during early modern warfare cavalry had gun then used swords.
Yes, of course. And no one on the battlefields of that era was wearing full plate. Different jobs, different tools.
Matt is so obnoxious, can't stand his channel.
Do you happen to be one of Shad’s morons?
Et tu mor