If you have fabric on the outside of your steel armor, and wet it, then as it evaporates it will draw all of the heat out from within, and your damp undergarments will become very cool. This is why water canteens have fabric on the outside of them. So you can wet it, and cool the water inside as the fabric dries.
I'm a great fan of Matt Easton (many of us are) but can I thank James for not doing what so many modern interviewers do and interrupt their guest every few words. James was willing to listen and to give time to the person being interviewed.
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.
I've been following Matt for years ... 5 years? Maybe longer, and I still learned stuff watching this. I love it. Definitely going to look at more of your videos and see if there are things that interest me.
2:49 Myth 1: Heavy armor is heavy 12:00 Myth 2: Swords were primary weapons 23:16 Myth 3: Soldiers' clothes were dreary 30:35 Myth 4: No medieval firearm and once invented armor became useless 44:02 Myth 5: Archers could shoot through armor
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 🤔
Absolutely BRILLIANT, this chat. Thank's a lot to James Hanson and especially to Matt Easton. It provided me with so many interesting coherences and insights about medieval warfare, and myth debunking too of course 😉.
Great vid, very comprehensive info spread over multiple subjects pertaining period warfare and it's perception or depiction accuracy. Largely because apart of the level of expertise of the guest - and Matt is beyond just educated and informed on the scholarly lvl also crossing into experimental archeology field because he is versed in use of said weapons being a HEMA practitioner as well instructor for years, but also because of the competence of host who did not constantly interupt with inane questions or comments just to denote their presence but let his expert guest present his diatribe on each subject questioned about in the extent required.
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!
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.
The knights, officers, centurions, jarls, housecarls etc. etc. were most surely NEVER in the majority of the soldiers. Napoleonic infantry officers frequently rode horses and neither had muskets nor pikes but they had sabres, pistols. But the cavalry man had lances, pistols and only after that they used their sabres. Hoplites primaries were spear and shield, xiphos was a backup weapon. Vikings used primarily spears and axes. Etc, etc, etc ...
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. 🤔
Your analogy is good; any random blacksmith could make "a sword". It's not that hard an idea. But one that's made by a dedicated weaponsmith, that's fitted for the wielder, made out of good steel, with professional fittings and a professionally-made hilt... both of them would be effective weapons, and much better than nothing. Swords did appear widely throughout most of recorded history, though. About 60% of mined copper was mined with hand tools. We think of mining as needing deep holes today, because all the easy surface metal has already been mined; some of it for thousands of years.
27 днів тому+3
Very intersting that there were layered armor designs hundreds of years ago.
The host quickly got that face you get when you politely ask how someone is, then have to sit through them, giving you a full in-depth breakdown of everything thats happend them and their extended family over the last 6 months. I do love Matts passionate ramblings, though.
@CraigSteele12 I appreciate him giving Matt the opportunity to fully answer the questions. I didn't mean it as a reflection on Matt, I'm a subscriber to his channel. It's just that he acknowledges himself that he doesn't always keep things very short. I wondered how long the host had pencilled in for the video.
@@CraigSteele12, the cocked head, half lidded eyes, occasionally slack jaw expression isn't the approach usually taught in communications classes. Head bobbing not withstanding.
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
very interesting and informative. a couple of things zid liked to have asked.... 1 Its my understanding from some reading on the subject that slingers were not generally employed in Europe during the middle ages is that a great deal of practice was required for acslinger to become accurate. uniformity in shape and weight was also necessary . less practicecand greater uniformity in the missile was possible for archers although it was still a fair amount. A practiced longbowman also had a high rste of fire and if the longbowmen were massed with proper protectionbandvselected terrain in front of them the arrow storms they could produce against mounted knightscor lightly or unarmored infantry were devastating. Crecy and Agincourt being two examples. 2. its my understanding that the composite bow used bythe mongols and later by the Tatars had a very high velocity and considerable effective range and generallyvwere capable ofcachieving penetration of justvabout anyvarmor in usecduring theircera including thecPersian heavy cavalary and the cataphracts of Byzantium. The eastern horsemen were also quitexaccurstecwith a high r as te of fire from horseback. is the foregoing true? 3The crossbow became popular becsusevthey eventuallyvused metal boltsvhad high velocity and less practicecwas required tobachieve accuract.zthecdisadvantagecwas typically a very low rate of fire due to the cranking time andcstrength requred. They were not particularly effective from horseback. is this true? 4. its my understanding that generally t steel quality of most Western swords was rather low The swords were prone to break or shatter on severe impact. They were not constructedcwith thexsame layered ste we l as the katana. Hence during the age of plst therevwas a tendency for mounted knights to favor weapons such as maces and morning stars which in the hands of the mounted knight could inflictvblows csusing broken bones concussions etc thst were incapacitating. While generally the bludgeon weapons could nit cave in a breast plate they could inflict serios injuries on head and limbs even thruvarmor whie a sword could not. is this true? . 😮
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.
I would imagine that throughout the non-firearm eras, spears/pikes/javelin type weapons in hand to hand engagements would dominate. Axes, swords, and the like seem to be backup for when, 'all the spears have been broken' and the battle has entered the desperation phase.
Medieval NAVAL warfare ended with the battles the English had against the Spanish Armada, when the Spanish showed up with portable castles and boarding parties, while the English came with their "Razed galleons" and standardized artillery equipped to fight an artillery duel and shoot the Spanish ships out from under them.
Swords are required in movies for the knock down, drag out fight between the hero and the villain. A bow and arrow fight wouldn't work nor halberds, etc., either. Over too quickly. Great video. Liked the part about colorful Middle Ages. In movies, everyone's covered in mud and it's always raining or about to. That's why they were called the Dark Ages!😆
Colors: Yes, I'm a real Viking in my fantasy game! I color my gear (when possible) in bright contrasting colors, it's so beautiful! Yes, there accounts from people meeting merchant Vikings where they make note of the colorful clothing. Yellow, blue, red, green, black, white all made from either plants or minerals. I've personally seen yellow and green plant color being made (the smell aint nice btw).
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.
Full armored cataphracts were rare because of how expensive they were to equip and how heavy, immobile the horse would end up that the cavalryman would only be good for delivering shock and nothing else. By having a well armored rider and an unarmored horse you could still do cavalry duties like screening, scouting, skirmishing to some extend. Most western euro man at arms were actually medium cavalry, not the fully barded cataphract type.
Very interesting. What about the economic factor? I guess that with the amount of iron/steel you need to craft a sword, you can instead build several spear heads. And that might be a critical factor when you have to arm an army. I guess that's also a reason why the sword has that sort of symbolic value and is associated with royalty and knights.
Swords were not primary weapons because they were the most fragile, very expensive, and largely ineffective against heavy armour. In the hands of an ordinary footman, any other weapon is more effective as a primary. A spear has more range, and the spear was used in battle before the shortsword/longsword was drawn as a backup. Clubs, maces, and axes are more effective against armour. The sword's main advantage was that it was relatively lightweight, which allowed it to be fast and defensive. I'd wager that even if I had a quality sword back in medieval times, I would attach it to the end of a stick to make a polearm.
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.
That too, but mainly because they liked bright colours. Also brighter, more vibrant and more varied colours may also be a sign of wealth and status. It’s interesting that monks, who took vows of poverty, usually wore black or grey habits.
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 don't understand how you'd use a sword in a formation with mostly spear users? Like everyone has a spear, yours breaks, so now you pull out your sword and do what? Aren't you at such a major reach disadvantage like what are you gonna even do?
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.
@@lukeueda-sarson6732 The bayonet replaced the pike as the infantry's offensive weapon. You couldn't deliver shock with musket volleys. Only cold steel could do that.
Nice and fresh sure you can hop around in plate armor but move around and fighting until you are gassed, then try hopping around. Anyone that has fought seriously, knows even with no armor on, it can be difficult to get up after a hard fight. As a battle wore on the gap in mobility would only widen. Then throw in elevation, mud, uneven footing and it only gets worse. I am sure good generals spent a fair bit of time deciding how to deploy heavy infantry to try and avoid problems.
That's why the heavies are screened by lights. Good generals are very concious of the weight and heat penalty body armor put on their troops. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Just because we've seen fresh people doing cartwheel stunts in heavy suits of armor doesn't mean it's not hot and exhausting to the men having to march and fight in them.
@@majungasaurusaaaa I agree, you can tell a lot about someone's actual experience in melee fighting by their comments. Being in a hard fight is like being in a car crash. The next couple days even without injuries can be unpleasant. Even well-conditioned folks can only exert maximum effort for so long. It would not take long under strenuous activity to feel the burden. Even a judo gi gets heavy toward the end of practice or after a hard fight and it does not weigh near as much as heavy armor.
I liked he respected Matt enough to listen without feeling the obligation to interrupt. But yes, having to nod all the time to keep his camera feed "active" was noticeable. ;-)
As always Matt struggles to give straight answers in his desire to cover every aspect and citing all the sources. James Hanson asks about the weight of armor and Matt gives him the whole manual of how to use and wear armor. As knowledgeable as Matt is I wish he wouldn't meander and deviate so much.
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.
It's a myth that maille is vulnerable to arrows. And while heavier bows shooting armor piercing tips could defeat it, it certainly wasn't "extremely vulnerable". Otherwise people wouldn't bother making and wearing it. Most medieval bows were of lower draw weight and shot broadheads. It's not easy finding archers that could operate the heavier bows.
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.
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.
The context here is a Battlefield, where polearms were a primary weapon. Granted that a sword would be your primary weapon in self defence & everyday carry.
@@lehtju4waif5ahk49 Indeed context dependent. The sword drops back a lot more as a primary weapon not just when facing armoured opponents but other opponents more on the same level at the higher levels.
@@adamjd7645 The issue is one of semantics but that aside it's not a weird thing to understand the concept of pikemen and so on. Maces are somewhat under represented as well unless in first person. I think in a lot of RTS though the can openers and so one are missing when you have max armour clashing. There is something else. Cavalry is almost always swords and spears. Did they never use anything like a hammer on the end of a long stick?
@@lehtju4waif5ahk49 mounted knights did use swords as primary weapons in battle. There is a reason why swords from that period are known as “knightly swords”
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.
That's why people did not wear ill fitted plate armor. Ill fitting maille is forgiving enough to make it worth it. But yes, ill fitted plate would just impede your movements and make you a sitting duck. Being able to move is far more important to your survival than being able to tank a hit.
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, halberds, 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.🤘
If you have fabric on the outside of your steel armor, and wet it, then as it evaporates it will draw all of the heat out from within, and your damp undergarments will become very cool.
This is why water canteens have fabric on the outside of them. So you can wet it, and cool the water inside as the fabric dries.
I'm a great fan of Matt Easton (many of us are) but can I thank James for not doing what so many modern interviewers do and interrupt their guest every few words. James was willing to listen and to give time to the person being interviewed.
Exactely !
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.
Captain Context strikes again! Bravo
Matt Easton is everywhere recently it's great
I've been following Matt for years ... 5 years? Maybe longer, and I still learned stuff watching this. I love it.
Definitely going to look at more of your videos and see if there are things that interest me.
2:49 Myth 1: Heavy armor is heavy
12:00 Myth 2: Swords were primary weapons
23:16 Myth 3: Soldiers' clothes were dreary
30:35 Myth 4: No medieval firearm and once invented armor became useless
44:02 Myth 5: Archers could shoot through armor
Always great to see a passionate knowledgeable expert bringing history alive. Great job Matt
Matt is a national treasure and should be knighted
That is a brilliant idea.
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 🤔
Absolutely BRILLIANT, this chat. Thank's a lot to James Hanson and especially to Matt Easton. It provided me with so many interesting coherences and insights about medieval warfare, and myth debunking too of course 😉.
Great vid, very comprehensive info spread over multiple subjects pertaining period warfare and it's perception or depiction accuracy. Largely because apart of the level of expertise of the guest - and Matt is beyond just educated and informed on the scholarly lvl also crossing into experimental archeology field because he is versed in use of said weapons being a HEMA practitioner as well instructor for years, but also because of the competence of host who did not constantly interupt with inane questions or comments just to denote their presence but let his expert guest present his diatribe on each subject questioned about in the extent required.
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!
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. :)
Period Accurate Blinger, thumbs up!
Please Continue like this. Wonderful.Maybe more graphic examples.
Thanks for a information packed long video. Great!
Great video, great guest.
Matt is the man, always love to get his wisdom.
Matt Easton GOAT ;)
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.
The knights, officers, centurions, jarls, housecarls etc. etc. were most surely NEVER in the majority of the soldiers. Napoleonic infantry officers frequently rode horses and neither had muskets nor pikes but they had sabres, pistols. But the cavalry man had lances, pistols and only after that they used their sabres. Hoplites primaries were spear and shield, xiphos was a backup weapon. Vikings used primarily spears and axes. Etc, etc, etc ...
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. 🤔
Your analogy is good; any random blacksmith could make "a sword". It's not that hard an idea. But one that's made by a dedicated weaponsmith, that's fitted for the wielder, made out of good steel, with professional fittings and a professionally-made hilt... both of them would be effective weapons, and much better than nothing.
Swords did appear widely throughout most of recorded history, though. About 60% of mined copper was mined with hand tools. We think of mining as needing deep holes today, because all the easy surface metal has already been mined; some of it for thousands of years.
Very intersting that there were layered armor designs hundreds of years ago.
The host quickly got that face you get when you politely ask how someone is, then have to sit through them, giving you a full in-depth breakdown of everything thats happend them and their extended family over the last 6 months.
I do love Matts passionate ramblings, though.
Disagree. I think he was fully engaged and letting Matt keep on with the knowledge bombs without interruption.
@CraigSteele12 I appreciate him giving Matt the opportunity to fully answer the questions. I didn't mean it as a reflection on Matt, I'm a subscriber to his channel. It's just that he acknowledges himself that he doesn't always keep things very short. I wondered how long the host had pencilled in for the video.
@@CraigSteele12, the cocked head, half lidded eyes, occasionally slack jaw expression isn't the approach usually taught in communications classes. Head bobbing not withstanding.
Captain Context!
Great video guys.
Great video, Matt, as always !!! 😊
I always thought spears were the most used weapons. They were cheaper to make and you can use them from a safer distance as well as throw them.
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.
@@cal2127 thanks!
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 thanks!
@@cal2127 Wai bro, what's the name of the channel?
I love both these channels 🙏
Love Matt, loved watching this.
Why didn't you use your great wireless mic, Matt!
If I had to learn one weapon that crosses geography, time and culture, I would learn spear-fighting. Maybe archery, which I do but not well.
very interesting and informative.
a couple of things zid liked to have asked....
1 Its my understanding from some reading on the subject that slingers were not generally employed in Europe during the middle ages is that a great deal of practice was required for acslinger to become accurate. uniformity in shape and weight was also necessary . less practicecand greater uniformity in the missile was possible for archers although it was still a fair amount. A practiced longbowman also had a high rste of fire and if the longbowmen were massed with proper protectionbandvselected terrain in front of them the arrow storms they could produce against mounted knightscor lightly or unarmored infantry were devastating. Crecy and Agincourt being two examples.
2. its my understanding that the composite bow used bythe mongols and later by the Tatars had a very high velocity and considerable effective range and generallyvwere capable ofcachieving penetration of justvabout anyvarmor in usecduring theircera including thecPersian heavy cavalary and the cataphracts of Byzantium. The eastern horsemen were also quitexaccurstecwith a high r as te of fire from horseback. is the foregoing true?
3The crossbow became popular becsusevthey eventuallyvused metal boltsvhad high velocity and less practicecwas required tobachieve accuract.zthecdisadvantagecwas typically a very low rate of fire due to the cranking time andcstrength requred. They were not particularly effective from horseback. is this true?
4. its my understanding that generally t steel quality of most Western swords was rather low The swords were prone to break or shatter on severe impact. They were not constructedcwith thexsame layered ste we l as the katana.
Hence during the age of plst therevwas a tendency for mounted knights to favor weapons such as maces and morning stars which in the hands of the mounted knight could inflictvblows csusing broken bones concussions etc thst were incapacitating. While generally the bludgeon weapons could nit cave in a breast plate they could inflict serios injuries on head and limbs even thruvarmor whie a sword could not. is this true?
.
😮
Many campaigns in Scandinavia and the Baltic region were fought during winter, so you could traverse frozen rivers instead of undeveloped roads.
16:36 looks like the crossbowstring will lob off his thumb when he looses the bolt
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.
*cauldron
I would imagine that throughout the non-firearm eras, spears/pikes/javelin type weapons in hand to hand engagements would dominate. Axes, swords, and the like seem to be backup for when, 'all the spears have been broken' and the battle has entered the desperation phase.
Medieval NAVAL warfare ended with the battles the English had against the Spanish Armada, when the Spanish showed up with portable castles and boarding parties, while the English came with their "Razed galleons" and standardized artillery equipped to fight an artillery duel and shoot the Spanish ships out from under them.
Too bad they didn't show the kind of Japanese armor Matt was actually talking about
Its quite lovely seeing things that us "community of the sword" folks have known for years being given to potentially a new audience. 🤙
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.
Fascinating!
Really interesting.
Actually, the spear is a rifle, the sword the equivalent of the pistol, and the fighting knife the dagger
"How do you know he's a King?" "Well, he's not covered in mud"
Swords are required in movies for the knock down, drag out fight between the hero and the villain. A bow and arrow fight wouldn't work nor halberds, etc., either. Over too quickly. Great video. Liked the part about colorful Middle Ages. In movies, everyone's covered in mud and it's always raining or about to. That's why they were called the Dark Ages!😆
Colors: Yes, I'm a real Viking in my fantasy game! I color my gear (when possible) in bright contrasting colors, it's so beautiful! Yes, there accounts from people meeting merchant Vikings where they make note of the colorful clothing. Yellow, blue, red, green, black, white all made from either plants or minerals. I've personally seen yellow and green plant color being made (the smell aint nice btw).
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.
Full armored cataphracts were rare because of how expensive they were to equip and how heavy, immobile the horse would end up that the cavalryman would only be good for delivering shock and nothing else. By having a well armored rider and an unarmored horse you could still do cavalry duties like screening, scouting, skirmishing to some extend. Most western euro man at arms were actually medium cavalry, not the fully barded cataphract type.
Very interesting. What about the economic factor? I guess that with the amount of iron/steel you need to craft a sword, you can instead build several spear heads. And that might be a critical factor when you have to arm an army. I guess that's also a reason why the sword has that sort of symbolic value and is associated with royalty and knights.
So the Green Knight was a myth. It would have been the Red / Green / Yellow Knight who kept his head throughout the battle.
Perhaps being monochromatic the Green Knight stood out as cursed by Morgana Le Fey?
Swords were not primary weapons because they were the most fragile, very expensive, and largely ineffective against heavy armour. In the hands of an ordinary footman, any other weapon is more effective as a primary. A spear has more range, and the spear was used in battle before the shortsword/longsword was drawn as a backup. Clubs, maces, and axes are more effective against armour. The sword's main advantage was that it was relatively lightweight, which allowed it to be fast and defensive. I'd wager that even if I had a quality sword back in medieval times, I would attach it to the end of a stick to make a polearm.
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
Ok, amend it to "a pistol IN CQB." If I'm going room to room, I want my pistol as a secondary. 🤷♂️
Were the bright colors to help identify people on the battlefield?
That too, but mainly because they liked bright colours. Also brighter, more vibrant and more varied colours may also be a sign of wealth and status. It’s interesting that monks, who took vows of poverty, usually wore black or grey habits.
I think saying primary weapons is over analyzing it. I believe it depended on the situation.
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.
A weapon that you can hang at your side?
Like, a side arm?
I don't understand how you'd use a sword in a formation with mostly spear users? Like everyone has a spear, yours breaks, so now you pull out your sword and do what? Aren't you at such a major reach disadvantage like what are you gonna even do?
Protect the flank of the spearman to your right.
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.
@@lukeueda-sarson6732 The bayonet replaced the pike as the infantry's offensive weapon. You couldn't deliver shock with musket volleys. Only cold steel could do that.
@@majungasaurusaaaa Indeed.
Pretty much up until firearms took over, the battlefield was dominated by a club and a pointy stick
Nice and fresh sure you can hop around in plate armor but move around and fighting until you are gassed, then try hopping around. Anyone that has fought seriously, knows even with no armor on, it can be difficult to get up after a hard fight. As a battle wore on the gap in mobility would only widen. Then throw in elevation, mud, uneven footing and it only gets worse. I am sure good generals spent a fair bit of time deciding how to deploy heavy infantry to try and avoid problems.
That's why the heavies are screened by lights. Good generals are very concious of the weight and heat penalty body armor put on their troops. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Just because we've seen fresh people doing cartwheel stunts in heavy suits of armor doesn't mean it's not hot and exhausting to the men having to march and fight in them.
@@majungasaurusaaaa I agree, you can tell a lot about someone's actual experience in melee fighting by their comments. Being in a hard fight is like being in a car crash. The next couple days even without injuries can be unpleasant. Even well-conditioned folks can only exert maximum effort for so long. It would not take long under strenuous activity to feel the burden. Even a judo gi gets heavy toward the end of practice or after a hard fight and it does not weigh near as much as heavy armor.
Genoese crossbowmen would stake their pavise shield down and fire from behind it.
8:24 Zac!
50 mins of nodding your head in agreement is crazy stuff
I liked he respected Matt enough to listen without feeling the obligation to interrupt. But yes, having to nod all the time to keep his camera feed "active" was noticeable. ;-)
Spears R U L E I can take any 3 swordsmen at the S A M E time with a spear.
P. E. R. I. O. D.
Swords are the pistols of the medieval world in my not so humble opinion.
Don`t wear armour in a Aussie Summer mate
Well, Thor used a hammer not a sword...
All Englishmen should be Robin Hood.
If i think robin hod i think bow and arrow
Matt: "lets look at medieval art"
The show: *shows a 19th century painting*
Metal on stick is the best.
The host looks like about to fall asleep. 😂
The presenter has a perpetual resting smug face!🤣
Armory cat!
lol the host couldn't look more bored.
As always Matt struggles to give straight answers in his desire to cover every aspect and citing all the sources.
James Hanson asks about the weight of armor and Matt gives him the whole manual of how to use and wear armor.
As knowledgeable as Matt is I wish he wouldn't meander and deviate so much.
Oh that guy who turns his back on long term friends he disagrees with.
No thanks. I’m not interested in Matt’s content.
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.
It's a myth that maille is vulnerable to arrows. And while heavier bows shooting armor piercing tips could defeat it, it certainly wasn't "extremely vulnerable". Otherwise people wouldn't bother making and wearing it. Most medieval bows were of lower draw weight and shot broadheads. It's not easy finding archers that could operate the heavier bows.
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.
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.
The context here is a Battlefield, where polearms were a primary weapon. Granted that a sword would be your primary weapon in self defence & everyday carry.
@@lehtju4waif5ahk49 Indeed context dependent. The sword drops back a lot more as a primary weapon not just when facing armoured opponents but other opponents more on the same level at the higher levels.
No, not clickbait. Also correct. It's a myth to believe they were the "go to" weapon.
@@adamjd7645 The issue is one of semantics but that aside it's not a weird thing to understand the concept of pikemen and so on. Maces are somewhat under represented as well unless in first person. I think in a lot of RTS though the can openers and so one are missing when you have max armour clashing. There is something else. Cavalry is almost always swords and spears. Did they never use anything like a hammer on the end of a long stick?
@@lehtju4waif5ahk49 mounted knights did use swords as primary weapons in battle. There is a reason why swords from that period are known as “knightly swords”
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.
That's why people did not wear ill fitted plate armor. Ill fitting maille is forgiving enough to make it worth it. But yes, ill fitted plate would just impede your movements and make you a sitting duck. Being able to move is far more important to your survival than being able to tank a hit.
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, halberds, or even hand axes and maces. Don’t draw too much from modern sporting combat.
Spears are too good, as in, they are too easy to hurt people with, even when deliberately bluntened for safety.
@@horsebattery A warhammer is blunt. A warhammer, whether foam or wood or metal, is unsafe.
as always presenter has a face like he's about to fall asleep
This video is probably very informative and well put together.
But I will sadly miss out because of the one hour play time.
Looks like you used that sword on your hair
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
Couldn't be me
Then don't watch it. 🤷♂️
lol americans, you have too high standards of reporting and efficiency in your media and it has made you weak!