So when designing an ancient army: Armor should follow the weapons of your enemies. Weapons should follow the armor of your enemies. You don't bring siege towers if the city doesn't have walls.
I've always wondered how different our world would be without gunpowder. We'd probably end up with electric weapons, but the 16-20th centuries would be really interesting.
@@mrclean7634 the thing is, even if blackpowder wasn't invented, there is just so many other materials that can undergo explosive combustion. Sooner or later a cheap reliable combustible was going to be found, and exploited. You'd need to change physics to prevent that. But if a deity had magically outlawed explosive combustions, there are interesting alternatives. + We might have gotten naphtha-flamethrowers (greek fire etc). + Mechanical devices like crossbows/arqebuses would have evolved stronger, including siege-engines of the type + Mining needs explosions too, so maybe there could have been steampowered innovations in the field? I don't see electric weapons anytime soon - not before history is entirely unrecognizable because warfare (sieges, land, naval) would be so enormously different.
Didn't mail exist in republican Rome? (lorica hamata) Hastati would usually have small chest plates but could have mail and principes and triarii would most definitely wear mail. which was around 298bc. Also didn't the roman soldier using lorica segmentata die out well before the fall if the empire? Funny how we they went from mail to basic plate armor back to mail again.
+mrZbozon theres it was lighter, cheaper, more flexible and technology had increased to make the metal used stronger and more durable. There was also a periods where they experimented with lorica squamata (scale mail).
+mrZbozon Yeah. Maille is an old, old, incredibly old invention (from the early Iron Age at least as early as 400 BCE) it was common before, during and long after the time of the Roman Empire, in fact: More Roman soldiers throughout time wore Lorica Hamata than ever wore Lorica Laminata. Segmentata/Laminata was common through a period of 400 years, so clearly it must've been useful, but both archaelogical evidence and experimental reconstruction has shown, that it was heavier, more fragile and much harder to maintain than maille.
+mrZbozon He goofed. Romans used mail, Segmentata, some scale, and laminar armor. They also at the end when they didn't have the resources to do any better used some layered cloth armor or at least that's what it looks like in art. It rots and so far as I know no samples have been found. Almost forgot. Some late Roman mounted forces were wearing what I'd call a version of plate armor. I have doubts that what they wore had any impact on plate armor as it developed rather later in Europe. I would add I know of no evidence that the Legions of Rome proper ever used leather body armor. Auxiliary forces may have used anything.
+NOT SO PRO GAMING The Gauls were Celts. Celtic culture in the early Iron Age was dominant throughout Western Europe and some parts of Central- and Eastern Europe, only gradually losing terrain to Latin and Germanic culture as we approach the Middle Ages. The Gauls were just one group (well actually several groups) of Celtic peoples. Celts are credited with a lot of important inventions not least among them is maille, which remained the absolute best and most versatile form of body armour for close to 2000 years.
"And then China discovered that blowing shit up was fun, and there was much rejoicing... until it was discovered that you could blow shit up in the general direction of people you didn't like. Then, the Fire Nation attacked, but with a twist... *everyone was now the Fire Nation*. And that is how war as we know it become even more hell than before." - The Book of World History for Internet Folk, 2016 ed.
This might be my favorite video of yours so far, and I'm more of a weapons enthusiast than one for armour. That being said, my love for historical narratives is probably why I really enjoyed this video. The very concise and digestible 'arms race' theme here was highly entertaining. Great work mate.
Yes, but you make it seem like the reason armor decreased was because it was useless as protection against firearms, while in reality it was about granting better mobility to the soldiers, not just in moving their limbs, but in mobilizing through the battlefield.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) We see plate armour decrease over a period of a few hundred years but by he time guns became the truly primary weapon it was easily able to penetrate plate. Since the scope of the video is the middle ages I tried my best to keep it contained. Part of this resolution was in keeping in line with the ending of my collaborator's video. and the other part was time consideration. Yes it's a little hand-wavy, but the point of this video was not the be an exhaustive study.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) Yeah but the scope of this video is... the image in my video of the evolution of armor has the dates associated with the post medieval period.
actaully chainmail existed already, in fact Roman used mail before the segmentata they simply changed to segmentata and then change back to hamata(mail)
Um... The Romans were using the Hamata mail armor before their plate Lorica... and never any "leather armor". And mail armor was the #1 armor since Antiquity so there was no "rise of mail" after the fall of the Empire...
+Torin Jones Leather Armor is mislooked at: its not the leather that gives the protection: its the metal plates underneath it, which are riveted through the leather, with a little spike on the outer side. One could say its mis-named: Its not 'leather armor', its Riveted plate armor. And it doesnt really mater if its riveted on leather vest, or a linen gambeson.
Just to add something, guns didn't made armor obsolete, pretty much the oposite, a full plate knight was pretty much invulnerable to early gun fire, but guns did kill the armors for being cheap, and for the price you would make a single armor you could make hundreds of guns. Other thing is that any idiot could carry a gun, so the human life carrying it became less valuable. a knight was a fighter trained since early childhood to become a master warrior. But any moron could point a gun and shoot, so there where little incentive to keep the warrior alive. PLUS, in middle ages each warrior was responsable for its own equipment, in the end of the middle age we see that change, and the estate began to arm the troops, and as usual when we talk about the estate, the estate just cares for the estate, so the estate will always use the cheapest and most ineficient way to do something. Most of the XX century soldiers had not even HELMETS untill WW1.
While that is mostly true, as in all things there are exceptions. For example, armor wasn't entirely given up- in fact, throughout the renaissance many foot-soldiers (such as pike-men) would wear limited armor. True, their armor was nothing close to that of the Knights', but it was still very prevalent. Many museum pieces in Vienna from the 1529 siege are armor pieces, especially breast-plates. Even into the 1800s, many lancers would wear breast plates to protect themselves from gunfire (or simply for ceremonial purposes). But it is certainly true that the advent of the gun was one of the key components of the downfall of the knight. The end of feudalism is often cited as another, sometimes more significant point to their end as well.
I guess he forgot to add that LATE gun development, the time where percussion caps, rifled bores, breech loading & use of specialized bullets came about, was what ended development of medieval armor, not guns in general. for most part, blunderbusses & flintlock muskets are indeed useless against a decent set of plate armor after all.
Great informative video! A follow up to this video such as modern armor would also be much appreciated. I think there is a lot to be said about, bullet proof vests (soft armor, Kevlar, ETC.), riot shields, flak jackets, helmet advancements, and of course tanks. I know this channel is focused mostly on the medieval period, hence the name. So, maybe I'd have to search elsewhere. I find medieval, renaissance, and earlier history to be just as interesting, if not more so. Keep up the good work!
I must say I was sceptical when you said "if I leave out a detail, it's not because I am not aware of it, but because I don't have the time", because that sounds a little bit like bragging that you know all the details. But then I saw your T-Shirt and agreed on every single one of your points.
Great video. A few bits and pieces which I might've been better mentioned, some bits a little misleading, but great all the same. The details of mail's development in density, metallurgy, "double mail", and multiple layers of mail, meant the mail did while being the same in construction change a lot in design as time passed. Mail could stop arrows quite well, if you wore it heavy enough--and mail was heavy. Brigandine coats started to appear commonly as metallurgy and techniques for producing steel plates improved, which eventually lead to chest pieces that covered most of the chest, and eventually articulated and artistically awesome armouring (almost) all areas of the knight or archer (even archers sometimes wore full field harness).
While guns did eliminate a lot of the usefulness of armor, I don't think it necessarily made it _completely_ useless. After all, the breastplate remained in use right through the Napoleonic era as armor for cavalry, as well as helmets (though, basically as anti-blade helmets with open faces). Plus, the renaissance was populated by both firearms and men in armor, such as men on horse, and in the pike formations. That being said, armor did disappear for the common soldier after a while. Only to reappear in the form of kevlar vests and modern helmets. Good video, as always :)
+doug mayovsky What basically happened in the renaissance and is also true for today is, that armour strong enough to counter the firearms of the day is bulky. So it's more practical to just cover the vital parts. That's why Infantry today wears body (torso) armour and helmets at most, as they did in the renaissance.
+doug mayovsky Yes, and I'll refer to the disclaimer I did that the beginning of the video... because its the reason for glossing over the post-medieval changes in armour. The ending was less of a "here is hard fact", and more a "hand wavy end to the medieval portion, that could also intersect with Shad's video"
+doug mayovsky Yes, armor, bows, crossbows, guns, even war elephants co-existed in a spectacular fashion in the Mughal Empire of India. Can't say i'm sorry that elephants were eventually phased out of the front lines though. However, one strange fact i learned recently was that in WW2, the Germans made frequent use of horses in transporting artillery around the battlefield! If people insist on making war, why do they always have to get animals involved in our stupid fights!? Anyway, my point in response to your post was that in the beginning, handguns (simply meaning a fire-arm small enough to be carried & operated by one user, as opposed to an artillery piece), were of very limited strategic value. Largely a novelty -a sucker punch weapon that was only useful in the right circumstances. If it were not for the discovery that soaking & then drying the gunpowder (corning) made it much more powerful, it may never have really eclipsed the bow & crossbow technology of the time, or made full armor cost-prohibitively impractical. Early fire-arms were not just temperamental & cantankerous, they were downright dangerous to the operators! But in the bigger picture, there was a lot going on in socio-political & economic arenas as a whole that were changing society & the way war was conducted. I think the gun is just easy to point to as the one decisive vector when really a whole tidal wave of change was occurring independently of its rise to prominence.
+doug mayovsky It was said that the Polish Hussar cuirrasse in XVII century was completely impervious to firearms existing at the time. But it also cost a fortune. I feel it was more the decline of chivalry and emergence of huge armies that buried plate armor than just guns. It turned out that it's generally better to conscript a few dozen thousand peasants and equip the with pikes than give feuds to a few hundred knights.
+doug mayovsky It should also be noted that, even if a piece of armour didn't protect the wearer from gunshots, it might still work fine against swords and pikes, making it still pretty useful on combatants who tended to run into lots of swords and pikes. Guns and full suits of plate armour coexisted on European battlefields for 300 years. It's quite clear that, even if armour could be pierced by some troops, it remained useful so long as it could not be pierced by all troops. Even if your armour will only stop about 25% of incoming lethal things, it's still worth wearing as long as the weight and costs are manageable. Really, armour never went out of service. Breastplates and even mail defenses on heavy cavalry lasted well into the era when steel helmets came back for infantry in WWI.
You do realize the Europeans sold guns to various African tribes and Kingdoms before Europe conquered all of Africa right? Also note that sword African Empires had been destroyed by firearms used by other Africans. Look up the war between the Moroccan Empire and Songhai Empire.
i meant to curse the guns because they allow people with no skill to kill too easily at least with a sword your skill and dedication matters and you can use an armor to protect yourself making wars even more skill based as opposed to guns which cannot be blocked and can kill you by hitting nearly anywhere in your body
In comparison to how many deaths on a battlefield there were when there weren't any guns. I'd rather praise guns. There clearly aren't as many deaths with guns than there used to be without in a war. With guns, it allows soldiers to scare away the enemy rather than kill them. They say that only 1% of an army would actually shoot to kill. I'm pretty sure that's a false figure, but speaking to people from the military such as my mum's boyfriend and others. It's not untrue that the majority of soldiers unconsciously avoid killing the enemy. Whereas in a battlefield full of thousands of men all moshed together, more deaths are bound to happen to cause a route. Of course it can't all be claimed on guns. The culture change through the times made killing less acceptable than it was in the times without weapons. But there's still a massive difference between deaths with guns and death without. Even in the beginning of guns. Guns were originally very inaccurate and used to just scare away the enemy with loud noises and all of the smoke. So i'm going to say hooray for guns. But screw the people that don't respect those guns. And the US govt who allows you to practically buy weapons from any establishment anywhere. Hi Welcome To McDonalds. Can I Take Your Order For You Please? Uh Yeah. I'll Have a Big Mac Please. Would You Like An RPG-7 With That Sir? Kay. Maybe that's an exaggeration. But you get the point.
+Tristan Boudreau Why would they deserve a chance too? It's called survival of the fittest. Guns ended humanity as an evolving species, which is WRONG.
This is the first video I’ve seen from your channel (cos of the Shadiversity sword evolution vid) so can I just say I absolutely love your moustache Never get rid of it
Not sure about your comment on arrows "going right through" mail. I have seen bodkin arrows fired from very powerful bows (both modern and old longbows) fail to break a single ring on real riveted mail even at close range. I don't think it is quite as weak as you imagine. Even in the era of mail we rarely hear of knights being killed with arrows unless it struck them in a place their mail did not cover. Of course I am sure you know that not all mail is equal, but the good stuff is TOUGH AS HELL, granted good heat treated plate was even tougher and had the added advantage of reducing blunt force trauma injury by dispersing the energy of a blow over a larger area so it was a natural evolution.
There was one important thing everyone seem to be forgetting, the coat of plates was a great advancement in transitional armor between mail and plate. Other commentators already mentioned roman mail and cost of guns playing a role in armor dwindling in usage however you are correct in the fact that advancements in guns made armor obsolete since the harness (a bulletproof one) became too heavy to wear.
Bandera , urbanmyths is correct. The distinction deserves to be made that the Celts invented mail armor sometime before Rome was especially noteworthy.
"as we moved into the early middle ages we begin to see the rise of mail" stopped right there and downvoted. Common man, get the basics right, you know mail originated with the celts and remained popular through the entire Roman era.
Sorry but the way you state that guns rendered armor useless is wrong and bad research. Guns (Handguns, Muskets and Canons) existied since the late 14th century and were a common sight during the prime-time of the full plate harness. Late medieval and Early Renaissance breastplates even had a feature called a "Beschussmarke" that proved that the plate was safe against crossbows and even muskets. New blackpowder-technology (better types of muskets) were ultimately one part of the demise of plate-armor but the way you state it, it sounds like the appearance of guns made armor obsolete, even though the co-existed for quite some time.
guns did lead to the fall of plate. as plate was expensive and used by skilled warriors. but warfare began to be less about skill and equipment and more about quantity and formation. you could probobly make 1000 guns for the peice of a set of plate. also. guns started to become relivent when the state started equiping the soldiers rather than them paying for and equiping themselfs.
I guess he just didn't elaborate well enough. LATE gun developments ended medieval armor. early ones, as many of us know here, are little more than impractical & dangerous toys.
Falcon Windblade the gun might not be able to kill them. But it still made the knight (except mounted ones) pointless. The amount of people who coukd aford a full plate set is few. And the armys wanted quantity and simplicity. So they gave a bunch of people little training with a weapon that takes little skill. So warfare as a whole had changed.
Robert Harris I guess you forgot that early guns ain't that convenient that you can load, lock, point & shoot in the matter of seconds. hell, guns that efficient & convenient wasn't available until 2 centuries ago. In the days before bullets come with their own propellant & breech loading became common place, loading & getting a gun ready to shoot would've taken MINUTES, far longer than what you need to load a crossbow. before caplock came about, you'd have needed to pull the trigger & wait like 2 seconds for the gun to actually fire. Furthermore, unlike guns today where you can even fire underwater reliably, guns back then were useless when they got wet, because the powder won't ignite at all. & speaking of powder, unlike propellants today, gunpowder was frickin' dirty. fire one shot & you get clouded in smoke, making aiming very damn inaccurate, which was made worse since they use pellets instead of bullets, making their effective range laughably short & the spread too wide to control.
Regarding mail it was actually very tough, (idk which one it was, William of Jumieges/Orderic Vitalis/William of Poitiers) there are various accounts of battles around northern France (between 1042-1053). In one particular incident the King of France is unhorsed several times as well as the hero of the chronicle Duke WIlliam, taking direct lance blows at times to their bodies or to their horses (falling several times off a horse, or taking a lance hit would be severe force-trauma) and after that still having the ability to get up and fight must've meant their mail armour was exceptionally well crafted and functional (or the Crusade accounts that some of the knights were so peppered with arrows they looked like hedgehogs - still moving and fighting tho, that's William of Tyre's account, ye a lot of Williams get used to it :P, but that might be on account of the relative weakness of Turkish bows).
So many things made me cringe in this. The coverage of roman armor was discouraging, but talking about shields in association of early middle ages yet choosing to show late medieval shields made it clear this is rather amateur effort and not worth further viewing.
If mail armor had been THAT easy to get through, nobody would have bothered with it. A full haulberg is heavy and exhausting to wear through an entire battle. If the increase in protective value is marginal, then the cost is not worth the reward. If something was used on the battlefield in large numbers and over long time, that is because it was effective. In the high and late medival periods you see swords that were designed for thrusts and were pretty effective against mail, but during the times when mail was the primary form of armament, swords had a REALLY hard time getting through it.
That's up for debate. The entire Empire didn't just disappear, and power struggles over what was left, even after Rome had been on decline for years, only really finished up around 492 CE, with the death of Odacer (I think I'm spelling that correctly).
No its not. 476 is when the last truly roman emperor was deposed. Say it's up for debate to any college professor and he will laugh at you due to where and who gave us the most concise writings on the Roman empire from a post perspective. Odoacer was truly an outsider. For 3 centuries before Rome's fall, there had been people of all Rome's cultures on the throne but they all had one thing in common, they came from Rome's boundaries. Odoacer didn't.
Its not the gun (because armour was bulletproof) it was economy that drove armour of the battlefields. Once combat got more massive and ranged the rich stopped wanting to risk. Since full plate set would cost so much only the rich could have those.
Armor was relatively bullet proof well into the 18th century. The problem was the sort of bulletproof it was wasn't very useful for most people. It caused you to break your ribs and have heart palpitations rather than a hole in you. You were still out of the fight, just more expensively.
Here on a journey to rewatch, like, and comment on all of Shad's videos to increase his engagement and get the channel back up and running smoothly again. I think this counts too, so here's some full engagement.
I agree that he could have explained a bit more about why armor became useless, but I hope my explanation helps. While early guns were much less accurate than bows and crossbows, they had one advantage: they were much, MUCH more powerful than them. So powerful that they easily penetrated any armor available at the time. I once read that some blacksmiths DID try to make chestplates thick enough to resist a bullet, but they were simply so heavy that the knights couldn't be expected to wear them. You have to remember, that a soldier just like today, was expected to carry his equipment for very long periods of time, especially during a military campaign. It was cheaper and more practical to not wear any armor at all.
Like I already said to Shad, you both did a great job here, good structure, many informations in a reasonable timeframe and very entertaining. But so many things I want to adress are floating in my head right now. I will at some point reply to both, yours and Shads video, just to ask some questions, point things out and of course give my own view on the subjects. One thing I want to note here though: Your beard my dear sir, is just awesome. Thank you for your time.
You forgot about MOST commonly used Roman armor, "Lorica Hamata" that was basicly a mail, mail armor is not medieval invention it was spread before on north by Romans, i think most barbarians got their mails from dead romans but that is just my assumption. Additionaly, mail in medieval times was not the only layer of protection against thrust attacks like spears and arrows, under every mail there was a gambeson that worked a bit like kevlar today (made out of warse materials but worked a bit the same), thats why we can read about knights that were so covered in arrows that they looked like hedghehogs, arrows got thrugh mail but stopped on gambesons, most of warriors fought only in gambesons since mails were expensive. 2 last things, i dont know any proofs on lether armor being a thing in Europe, at least i never heard about any lether armor outside of rpg games (it looks like some of your knowledge came out from these), you cant state something as a fact and misslead people if it is not scientificly confrimed. And last thing, guns were used even in medieval ages, at first primitive but still both guns and armors were used on battlefield together for long time and it was not a big deal, reasons for armor changing into a lighter versions or no at all are diferrent, guns development is one of the reasons but not crucial one, whole combat changed, not only armors. Voted down, its ok to be interested in something and spread it... but do it correctly and check your facts before you misslead people.
Celts and the German tribes had been making mail for a while but the celts in northern Italy eventually succumbed to the Romans and so the Romans made their own version of mail as they had the production line to mass produce unlike the celts or Germans and leather was found not just in Europe but all over the world even way before the Greek civilisations kicked off.
josh kidd Just because leather was found does not mean if it was armor or if it was commonly used (might be just decoration for special occasions like some roman armors), there was not much of foundings in Europe and it CANNOT be said that it was in use because there are not enaugh sources to confrim it as fact as creator of this video did. About mail and Romans... i did mentioned that i do not know how did barbarians get mail and i did mention that what i said were just assumptions to not mislead people when i do not have enaugh knowledge, i am glad you have corrected me. Personally i do believe that leather armor existed since it was not so hard to make, it was easy to get material, and if it was thick it was hard enaugh to withstand some nice hits, but because of lack of evidence we cannot state that it was used as fact.
Maciej Różański , It is virtually universally agreed upon that mail armor was invented by the Celts, as the oldest Celt samples of mail armor predate the rise of Rome by hundreds of years. It was never common among Celtic people, but the Romans certainly encountered it among the Gauls first.
I think trying to condense the topic so much looses too much. Chain maille is older than I feel is fairly represented here. And it wasn't just joinery on later more advanced armour. Full chain maille was often worn under even the late medieval full plate and plate maille armour. Padded armour also deserves a key place in this discussion. Overall there seems to be a "this obsoleted that" approach to how this is presented. When very little of it was actually ever replaced. Rather advancements added layers and levels of complexity to preexisting systems of protection. An aside: I do make the "Chain Maille" distinction so as not to be confused with other forms of Maille. Just like I use the an older spelling so as not to be confused when viewed out of context with postal mail. Though a modernism. I feel it is useful for clarity and classifications' sake.
The roman used mail! In the early middle ages the mail wasn't some new thing, it had existed for hundreds of years! Come on, you should know that. btw, i think this is my second comment on this video on the same complain...
Temporal paradox. Happens all the "time", but only Gallefeyxians are attuned to it. I noticed the temporal resonant precession right away. Good work to continue on as if nothing had happened. BTW, the complete list of Times lords is as follows: Doctors Who, What, When, Where, and, sometimes, Why.
10:31 When you get to a certain level of HEMA fencing skill, you get to the point where your cutting skills are so sharp that one could actually cut through time with their sword to end their future opponent rightly when they were a baby.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) No worries. o e of the worst things that can happen to history is for things to not be questioned. I knew going Into this video that vagueness would lead to questions so I was prepared for someone to speak up. 😁
Good points rarely addressed. The shield was made obsolete by the development of plate that was far stronger than a wooden shield. Also, full helms were mostly used for cavalry charges, but parts discarded for the melee for peripheral vision.
Hi, I would like to correct a few details The way that you talk about roman armor, makes it sound like chainmail armor only entered widespread use in the early middle ages. Which is very wrong. Chainmail armor was the main type of armor for wealthy Germanic, Gaul, and celtic warriors. Rome adopted chain mail armor from these tribes and utilized it as their main form of armor. Roman chainmail was called lorica Hamata and it was the most common type of armor used in the western roman empire. Lorica segmentata existed as well but chainmail was much more common. Basically chainmail was already in widespread use way before the early medieval period Also this is a small nitpick but you claim that shields "went away" as armor developed to cover more of the body. this is only true for wealthy individuals who could afford expensive armor. Common infantry soldiers used large shields all throughout the medieval Era, because normal infantry did not have the money for full plate armor. So soldiers still needed large shields even when full suits of plate existed Anyway, this is a pretty informative video, I. Just felt like some things were generalized way too much.
So many comments. A lot of them good points. I think you might have done yourself a service by making the video longer - covering not just the most expensive armours, and explaining how gunpowder changed the use of armour (instead of insinuating that medieval guns rendered armour obsolete because it effectively pierced it, which is not the reason.)
There is so much misinformation in this video. In the beginning you get Roman armor completely wrong, and in the end you gloss over the adaptation of armor to early firearms. The central point of this video is also wrong as you continue to spread the myth of the evolution of armor as an arms race when it was primarily socio-economic factors and changes in the way war was fought.
I saw a few comments but again I will reiterated. Lorica simply means harness or armor in Latin. Hamata (Chainmail), Segmentata (segmented plates), and Squamata were in use depending on what part of both Late Roman Republic, Early and later Imperial Times. That is also disregarding Lorica Muscala or plate armor worn by very wealthy officers. I think the issue was Hamata came back into use in Late Imperial Times due to its repearibility. Due to some Germanic Tribes serving as auxiliaries, they were exposed to hamta and thusly developed mail more.
Armor didn't evolve, it was created by God in its perfect form. Any armor that isn't as perfect as the perfect form armor was put there to test our faith.
Thank you for this very informative, easy to understand video. But I think we ought to make corrections on some points: 1) Mail isn't an invention of the Middle Ages. It was the heavy armour of antiquity widely used by Romans (perhaps since 5th century BC), who called it lorica hamata. In Domitian's, Trajan's, Hadrian's time (2nd century AD), we see the laminated plate armour (lorica segmentata, but the Romans didn't call it that) as the more common type of legionary armour. Mail hauberk seems to have made a comeback after the reforms of Constantine (4th century AD). Although it is unclear as to why they went back to using lorica hamata, one might speculate that it was more cost effective, easier to maintain and/or manufacture than plate that they began using it again. 2) The statement "helmets became very popular" leaves the wrong impression of "there was a time when helmets weren't commonly used in battle", which isn't true. The helmet, along with the shield, was the essential part of the warrior's/soldier's defence, since antiquity. (Celts, Gauls, Iberian (Hispanic) and Germanic tribes, whom we know as barbarians, used them too. Interestingly enough, Romans adopted the Iberian sword -hence it was called gladius hispaniensis-, and the Gallic helmet since their metalwork and design was better than the theirs, so the Romans learned from them.) 3) "Arrows would go straight through mail"? I don't think so. It would've been abandoned long before, if that was the case. Although mail wasn't great against projectiles at close range, with padding underneath, it would keep you alive, wounded but alive. But if you were to charge under a massive hail of arrows/bolts, and wanted to use a poleaxe to be effective against armour, then you needed a more rigid defence: plate armour. The breastplate (and other plate armour parts) both addressed the issue of blunt force trauma and perfected the ability to deflect cuts, thrusts and projectiles alike. The point was to provide a rigid, angled, polished surface, that would make everything glide off. You didn't want to be a pin cushion, because if something could stick, more would follow through the weak spot and you'd be dead soon. This type of comfortable survivability makes sense, especially in the context of its price and the wearer's social status. Just as a Ferrari is built for speed, and you don't have to repair its engine after speeding each time, so was plate armour built for protection and shouldn't require repairs, only because it was shot by a few arrows, or received some blows. And just like a Ferrari, It costed a fortune to have a plate harness made, so it should've been worth the money.
been a subscriber for a while now...like every vid of yours I watch! gotta say I really enjoy ur videos..very informative and high quality! wish I could find reviews in your style for camera equipment! lol
I am a metal fabricator , I just can’t see the manufacturing process to make chain mail back then , it so easy to draw pictures of this stuff than it is to manufacture it for army’s of this stuff, get real , now a days we can easily make this stuff with roll formers , stamping machines . I saw a video maybe twenty years ago on this lady that made the first chain mail armor suit that she made for shark bite resistance and she went on to explain how she had to put all those links together and just how long it took to make one suit, ( try and order one) she also started making them for movies, prop clothes . Just amazes me how may solders were fitted for swords, shields, helmets and chain mail without the technology of today. And on top of that they didn’t have acetylene gas so think about what they used to heat metal.
In the year 40,000 they have "powered armor" its a small nuclear reactor that powers fiber bundles to act as a 2nd muscle. It makes the wearer invulnerable to almost everything, including Lazer guns.
Good video. I often use the term "chainmail" because, first, medieval sources themselves show a great deal of flexibility in what they call things (and had no problem with tautologies, redundancies, and saying the same thing more than once); and second, everybody knows what you mean when you say chainmail. I'd rather try to get basic principles straight than to correct people on that particular bit of terminology.
It's a gross over simplification to say that guns made armour obsolete. Guns in Europe predate the most highly developed armours by at least a century. Guns and armour shared the battlefield until the late 17th century, although some types remained in use into the 18th and 19th centuries. It wasn't until this time that firearms could reliably penetrate plate armour. It was possible to make plate armour that was "bullet-proof", but it was impractical.
GREAT INFORMATIVE Video & History! also - The Western Roman Empire fell to the Gothic Tribes in 476 A.D. The Celts, Goth tribes, and the Nordic components invaded and destroyed Roman Empire, but 85% of the Western Roman Army/Legions were actually Gothic Tribes who turned on ROme and "the rest is history". Well done.
Some experts say that it was not the gun, but the evolution of costs, the sizes or armies, and the situation of warfare and battles that changed that. Please revise.
Romans used mail armor since the times of Roman Republic. Lorica Segmentata was introduced mainly because it was much faster to produce. But it also required much better facilities to produce and repair than mail (Lorica Hamata) that why in late days of Roman Empire mail armor once again became dominant. Additionally mail when taken care of could be used for many decades.
The gun didn't stop armors usage like is commonly suggested. Gun powder weapons were recorded in Europe since the 1200 and 1300s. Light guns appear in the 1320s. By the 14 and 1500s a helmet would be 'proofed' with a close shot from a matlock pistol.
Great video. Surrounding the fall of Rome though. Romans had given up the use of Lorica segmentata during the the end of the republic and was rarely seen in the imperial empire. That was mainly because it was expensive, difficult to repair and required high maintenance. The Lorica hamata (mail) was actually used before and then replaced the segmentata to fix all the problems mentioned earlier. not saying mail is better, but it was good enough, particularly with roman tactics relying on the shield, the armour the soldier worn is arguably the back up defence. The empire didn't go into the night quickly, it can be attributed to the dilution of its military and its de- professionalization over a century. Concurrent to this was a reduction in trade and labour skill, resulting in the more primitive forms of arms and armour after Rome's fall
well, not quite, its end of use was more around the reign of diocletian in the 3rd century at which point maille and scale took over entirely, along with some early formf of lamellar but those are disputed as of yet...
The lorica hamata which was mail was used by the late roman legions(it was actually always used by by the romans and never completely superceded by the segmenta, the boiled leather cuirass was only used by officers.
One lesson taught by the fate of Richard III is if you are in full plate armor on a battle field you better keep your horse. And in case you've lost it never consider to take off your helmet for a better view and shout around.
Mail was the predominant armor throughout the Roman republic and empire. While Lorica Segmentata is the most well known type of Roman armor, it was only used for a relatively brief period of Roman history and was never implemented completely with all forces.
Good video. I have seen an argument that guns really were not completely responsible for the downfall of armour, and that armour was pretty decent at stopping some of ordinance of the day, as we know at one point long leather coats were issued to British soldiers to stop musket balls. The real downfall of plate armour may have been it's cost coupled with a growing population. Between raw materials, time, craftsmanship and an incredible amount of training it took to be effective, suited knights were expensive. When one employed such knights it meant that one would be limited in the size of army one could have. As the population of Europe grew, more bodies were available, and by shedding the costs of armour, it meant that you could spread the money out, have multiple armies and influence more territories. Thoughts?
So when designing an ancient army:
Armor should follow the weapons of your enemies.
Weapons should follow the armor of your enemies.
You don't bring siege towers if the city doesn't have walls.
I've always wondered how different our world would be without gunpowder. We'd probably end up with electric weapons, but the 16-20th centuries would be really interesting.
now, imagine if we discovered electricity before fire
We were always going to discover blackpowder and invent firearms. If the Chinese hadn't, then someone else would've.
@@BartimaeusAurelius he just means that what happens if we hadent yet
@@mrclean7634 the thing is, even if blackpowder wasn't invented, there is just so many other materials that can undergo explosive combustion. Sooner or later a cheap reliable combustible was going to be found, and exploited. You'd need to change physics to prevent that.
But if a deity had magically outlawed explosive combustions, there are interesting alternatives.
+ We might have gotten naphtha-flamethrowers (greek fire etc).
+ Mechanical devices like crossbows/arqebuses would have evolved stronger, including siege-engines of the type
+ Mining needs explosions too, so maybe there could have been steampowered innovations in the field?
I don't see electric weapons anytime soon - not before history is entirely unrecognizable because warfare (sieges, land, naval) would be so enormously different.
@@TheRealSvbbyKun_ if we discovered electricity before fire, we ultimately wouldve had a harder time as a species until the modern period
Didn't mail exist in republican Rome? (lorica hamata) Hastati would usually have small chest plates but could have mail and principes and triarii would most definitely wear mail. which was around 298bc. Also didn't the roman soldier using lorica segmentata die out well before the fall if the empire? Funny how we they went from mail to basic plate armor back to mail again.
+mrZbozon theres it was lighter, cheaper, more flexible and technology had increased to make the metal used stronger and more durable. There was also a periods where they experimented with lorica squamata (scale mail).
+mrZbozon Yeah. Maille is an old, old, incredibly old invention (from the early Iron Age at least as early as 400 BCE) it was common before, during and long after the time of the Roman Empire, in fact: More Roman soldiers throughout time wore Lorica Hamata than ever wore Lorica Laminata. Segmentata/Laminata was common through a period of 400 years, so clearly it must've been useful, but both archaelogical evidence and experimental reconstruction has shown, that it was heavier, more fragile and much harder to maintain than maille.
+mrZbozon He goofed. Romans used mail, Segmentata, some scale, and laminar armor. They also at the end when they didn't have the resources to do any better used some layered cloth armor or at least that's what it looks like in art. It rots and so far as I know no samples have been found. Almost forgot. Some late Roman mounted forces were wearing what I'd call a version of plate armor. I have doubts that what they wore had any impact on plate armor as it developed rather later in Europe. I would add I know of no evidence that the Legions of Rome proper ever used leather body armor. Auxiliary forces may have used anything.
+zaco21 was it not the celts?
+NOT SO PRO GAMING The Gauls were Celts. Celtic culture in the early Iron Age was dominant throughout Western Europe and some parts of Central- and Eastern Europe, only gradually losing terrain to Latin and Germanic culture as we approach the Middle Ages. The Gauls were just one group (well actually several groups) of Celtic peoples.
Celts are credited with a lot of important inventions not least among them is maille, which remained the absolute best and most versatile form of body armour for close to 2000 years.
The Chinese had to go and have fireworks.....
hahahaha
lmao then europeans came and traded the gunpowder from fireworks too gun works lmao
"And then China discovered that blowing shit up was fun, and there was much rejoicing... until it was discovered that you could blow shit up in the general direction of people you didn't like. Then, the Fire Nation attacked, but with a twist... *everyone was now the Fire Nation*. And that is how war as we know it become even more hell than before." - The Book of World History for Internet Folk, 2016 ed.
+Sapheiorus lol
Fire Nation build engine goat tank climbing
over Great Wall of Earth Kingdom.
This might be my favorite video of yours so far, and I'm more of a weapons enthusiast than one for armour. That being said, my love for historical narratives is probably why I really enjoyed this video. The very concise and digestible 'arms race' theme here was highly entertaining. Great work mate.
+Royston Dorsa More of these kinds of videos to come... They won't always be warfare specific.
The gun was around since the fourteenth century and a good suit of armor could effectively stop a shot from a firearm from the same period.
Yes but as firearms developed further in the 16th and 17th armour decreased. again generalizations for the benefit of time.
Yes, but you make it seem like the reason armor decreased was because it was useless as protection against firearms, while in reality it was about granting better mobility to the soldiers, not just in moving their limbs, but in mobilizing through the battlefield.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) We see plate armour decrease over a period of a few hundred years but by he time guns became the truly primary weapon it was easily able to penetrate plate. Since the scope of the video is the middle ages I tried my best to keep it contained. Part of this resolution was in keeping in line with the ending of my collaborator's video. and the other part was time consideration. Yes it's a little hand-wavy, but the point of this video was not the be an exhaustive study.
The time when guns became truly the primary weapon was the seventeenth century. That is definitely not medieval.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) Yeah but the scope of this video is... the image in my video of the evolution of armor has the dates associated with the post medieval period.
1:53 good ol' Mount & Blade Warband.
exactly my thought
Oh look, a feast!
It's almost harvesting season.
excuse me, My men and I need a word with you about your purse
that's a good looking head on your shoulders
actaully chainmail existed already, in fact Roman used mail before the segmentata they simply changed to segmentata and then change back to hamata(mail)
Um... The Romans were using the Hamata mail armor before their plate Lorica... and never any "leather armor". And mail armor was the #1 armor since Antiquity so there was no "rise of mail" after the fall of the Empire...
before i think they used brass buckles didn't they?
leather armour is made up for the movies mostly
+Torin Jones Leather Armor is mislooked at: its not the leather that gives the protection: its the metal plates underneath it, which are riveted through the leather, with a little spike on the outer side. One could say its mis-named: Its not 'leather armor', its Riveted plate armor. And it doesnt really mater if its riveted on leather vest, or a linen gambeson.
The mongols used leather armour
@@trevorwise1950 silence
Just to add something, guns didn't made armor obsolete, pretty much the oposite, a full plate knight was pretty much invulnerable to early gun fire, but guns did kill the armors for being cheap, and for the price you would make a single armor you could make hundreds of guns.
Other thing is that any idiot could carry a gun, so the human life carrying it became less valuable. a knight was a fighter trained since early childhood to become a master warrior. But any moron could point a gun and shoot, so there where little incentive to keep the warrior alive.
PLUS, in middle ages each warrior was responsable for its own equipment, in the end of the middle age we see that change, and the estate began to arm the troops, and as usual when we talk about the estate, the estate just cares for the estate, so the estate will always use the cheapest and most ineficient way to do something.
Most of the XX century soldiers had not even HELMETS untill WW1.
While that is mostly true, as in all things there are exceptions. For example, armor wasn't entirely given up- in fact, throughout the renaissance many foot-soldiers (such as pike-men) would wear limited armor. True, their armor was nothing close to that of the Knights', but it was still very prevalent. Many museum pieces in Vienna from the 1529 siege are armor pieces, especially breast-plates. Even into the 1800s, many lancers would wear breast plates to protect themselves from gunfire (or simply for ceremonial purposes). But it is certainly true that the advent of the gun was one of the key components of the downfall of the knight. The end of feudalism is often cited as another, sometimes more significant point to their end as well.
+Adumbrate theres the winged hussars. they wore a whole set of plate mail.
I guess he forgot to add that LATE gun development, the time where percussion caps, rifled bores, breech loading & use of specialized bullets came about, was what ended development of medieval armor, not guns in general. for most part, blunderbusses & flintlock muskets are indeed useless against a decent set of plate armor after all.
Falcon Windblade the mass production of muskets is what ended the use of expensive plate.
It wasn't as much guns as it was cannons that made armor obsolete.
Great informative video! A follow up to this video such as modern armor would also be much appreciated. I think there is a lot to be said about, bullet proof vests (soft armor, Kevlar, ETC.), riot shields, flak jackets, helmet advancements, and of course tanks.
I know this channel is focused mostly on the medieval period, hence the name. So, maybe I'd have to search elsewhere. I find medieval, renaissance, and earlier history to be just as interesting, if not more so. Keep up the good work!
I must say I was sceptical when you said "if I leave out a detail, it's not because I am not aware of it, but because I don't have the time", because that sounds a little bit like bragging that you know all the details. But then I saw your T-Shirt and agreed on every single one of your points.
Great video. A few bits and pieces which I might've been better mentioned, some bits a little misleading, but great all the same.
The details of mail's development in density, metallurgy, "double mail", and multiple layers of mail, meant the mail did while being the same in construction change a lot in design as time passed. Mail could stop arrows quite well, if you wore it heavy enough--and mail was heavy.
Brigandine coats started to appear commonly as metallurgy and techniques for producing steel plates improved, which eventually lead to chest pieces that covered most of the chest, and eventually articulated and artistically awesome armouring (almost) all areas of the knight or archer (even archers sometimes wore full field harness).
thank you for passing down all of this info, truly appreciate it
While guns did eliminate a lot of the usefulness of armor, I don't think it necessarily made it _completely_ useless. After all, the breastplate remained in use right through the Napoleonic era as armor for cavalry, as well as helmets (though, basically as anti-blade helmets with open faces). Plus, the renaissance was populated by both firearms and men in armor, such as men on horse, and in the pike formations.
That being said, armor did disappear for the common soldier after a while. Only to reappear in the form of kevlar vests and modern helmets.
Good video, as always :)
+doug mayovsky What basically happened in the renaissance and is also true for today is, that armour strong enough to counter the firearms of the day is bulky. So it's more practical to just cover the vital parts. That's why Infantry today wears body (torso) armour and helmets at most, as they did in the renaissance.
+doug mayovsky Yes, and I'll refer to the disclaimer I did that the beginning of the video... because its the reason for glossing over the post-medieval changes in armour. The ending was less of a "here is hard fact", and more a "hand wavy end to the medieval portion, that could also intersect with Shad's video"
+doug mayovsky Yes, armor, bows, crossbows, guns, even war elephants co-existed in a spectacular fashion in the Mughal Empire of India. Can't say i'm sorry that elephants were eventually phased out of the front lines though. However, one strange fact i learned recently was that in WW2, the Germans made frequent use of horses in transporting artillery around the battlefield! If people insist on making war, why do they always have to get animals involved in our stupid fights!?
Anyway, my point in response to your post was that in the beginning, handguns (simply meaning a fire-arm small enough to be carried & operated by one user, as opposed to an artillery piece), were of very limited strategic value. Largely a novelty -a sucker punch weapon that was only useful in the right circumstances. If it were not for the discovery that soaking & then drying the gunpowder (corning) made it much more powerful, it may never have really eclipsed the bow & crossbow technology of the time, or made full armor cost-prohibitively impractical. Early fire-arms were not just temperamental & cantankerous, they were downright dangerous to the operators! But in the bigger picture, there was a lot going on in socio-political & economic arenas as a whole that were changing society & the way war was conducted. I think the gun is just easy to point to as the one decisive vector when really a whole tidal wave of change was occurring independently of its rise to prominence.
+doug mayovsky It was said that the Polish Hussar cuirrasse in XVII century was completely impervious to firearms existing at the time. But it also cost a fortune. I feel it was more the decline of chivalry and emergence of huge armies that buried plate armor than just guns. It turned out that it's generally better to conscript a few dozen thousand peasants and equip the with pikes than give feuds to a few hundred knights.
+doug mayovsky It should also be noted that, even if a piece of armour didn't protect the wearer from gunshots, it might still work fine against swords and pikes, making it still pretty useful on combatants who tended to run into lots of swords and pikes.
Guns and full suits of plate armour coexisted on European battlefields for 300 years. It's quite clear that, even if armour could be pierced by some troops, it remained useful so long as it could not be pierced by all troops. Even if your armour will only stop about 25% of incoming lethal things, it's still worth wearing as long as the weight and costs are manageable.
Really, armour never went out of service. Breastplates and even mail defenses on heavy cavalry lasted well into the era when steel helmets came back for infantry in WWI.
It's always nice to find a new channel and start enjoying the content and then bam one of my other favorite UA-camrs busts up in it, haha.
curse the guns
You do realize the Europeans sold guns to various African tribes and Kingdoms before Europe conquered all of Africa right? Also note that sword African Empires had been destroyed by firearms used by other Africans. Look up the war between the Moroccan Empire and Songhai Empire.
i meant to curse the guns because they allow people with no skill to kill too easily at least with a sword your skill and dedication matters and you can use an armor to protect yourself making wars even more skill based as opposed to guns which cannot be blocked and can kill you by hitting nearly anywhere in your body
In comparison to how many deaths on a battlefield there were when there weren't any guns. I'd rather praise guns. There clearly aren't as many deaths with guns than there used to be without in a war.
With guns, it allows soldiers to scare away the enemy rather than kill them. They say that only 1% of an army would actually shoot to kill. I'm pretty sure that's a false figure, but speaking to people from the military such as my mum's boyfriend and others. It's not untrue that the majority of soldiers unconsciously avoid killing the enemy. Whereas in a battlefield full of thousands of men all moshed together, more deaths are bound to happen to cause a route.
Of course it can't all be claimed on guns. The culture change through the times made killing less acceptable than it was in the times without weapons. But there's still a massive difference between deaths with guns and death without.
Even in the beginning of guns. Guns were originally very inaccurate and used to just scare away the enemy with loud noises and all of the smoke.
So i'm going to say hooray for guns.
But screw the people that don't respect those guns.
And the US govt who allows you to practically buy weapons from any establishment anywhere.
Hi Welcome To McDonalds. Can I Take Your Order For You Please?
Uh Yeah. I'll Have a Big Mac Please.
Would You Like An RPG-7 With That Sir?
Kay. Maybe that's an exaggeration. But you get the point.
+Tristan Boudreau Why would they deserve a chance too? It's called survival of the fittest. Guns ended humanity as an evolving species, which is WRONG.
Melee will return one day!!
This is the first video I’ve seen from your channel (cos of the Shadiversity sword evolution vid) so can I just say
I absolutely love your moustache
Never get rid of it
Not sure about your comment on arrows "going right through" mail. I have seen bodkin arrows fired from very powerful bows (both modern and old longbows) fail to break a single ring on real riveted mail even at close range. I don't think it is quite as weak as you imagine. Even in the era of mail we rarely hear of knights being killed with arrows unless it struck them in a place their mail did not cover. Of course I am sure you know that not all mail is equal, but the good stuff is TOUGH AS HELL, granted good heat treated plate was even tougher and had the added advantage of reducing blunt force trauma injury by dispersing the energy of a blow over a larger area so it was a natural evolution.
There was one important thing everyone seem to be forgetting, the coat of plates was a great advancement in transitional armor between mail and plate. Other commentators already mentioned roman mail and cost of guns playing a role in armor dwindling in usage however you are correct in the fact that advancements in guns made armor obsolete since the harness (a bulletproof one) became too heavy to wear.
7:39
*Suddenly, straight out of Dark Souls*
White343 historical giant dad
Loved the intervention. Quality video!
LOL- Yaaay - a Shad cross-over vid - gotta love that!!!!
¡Gracias!
And, thank you! ¡Gracias!
he said 12th century when referencing 1250... shame.
Jk, good job.
Literally unwatchable
Its amazing how hard it is to do that right when talking about it. =)
+Medieval Review wasn't loraca segmantata not as widely used as mail by romans
You can think a perfect sentence and it can still sound like gibberish.
+paul lytle I don't think the romans used chainmail until later
Bad ass, you and Shad need to collaborate more, what a mighty team you two make.
celts too had mails and saxons had a lot of them in 5 century
The Romans used it as well. It's was pretty common then too
Bandera , urbanmyths is correct. The distinction deserves to be made that the Celts invented mail armor sometime before Rome was especially noteworthy.
The celts invented mail, the romans stole it, and then the germanic tribes stole it from the romans.
I love this video, the speed you talk is understandable to me :P
"as we moved into the early middle ages we begin to see the rise of mail"
stopped right there and downvoted. Common man, get the basics right, you know mail originated with the celts and remained popular through the entire Roman era.
Pic at 1:50 is from mb warband!also great job on the video!u earned yourself a sub!
Arrows don't just fly through mail like you imply.
came for the history, liked the reviews, stayed for the Facial hair it is MAJESTIC still tho good vid and your other ones glad i found you ^-^
Sorry but the way you state that guns rendered armor useless is wrong and bad research. Guns (Handguns, Muskets and Canons) existied since the late 14th century and were a common sight during the prime-time of the full plate harness. Late medieval and Early Renaissance breastplates even had a feature called a "Beschussmarke" that proved that the plate was safe against crossbows and even muskets. New blackpowder-technology (better types of muskets) were ultimately one part of the demise of plate-armor but the way you state it, it sounds like the appearance of guns made armor obsolete, even though the co-existed for quite some time.
guns did lead to the fall of plate. as plate was expensive and used by skilled warriors. but warfare began to be less about skill and equipment and more about quantity and formation. you could probobly make 1000 guns for the peice of a set of plate. also. guns started to become relivent when the state started equiping the soldiers rather than them paying for and equiping themselfs.
I guess he just didn't elaborate well enough. LATE gun developments ended medieval armor. early ones, as many of us know here, are little more than impractical & dangerous toys.
Falcon Windblade the gun might not be able to kill them. But it still made the knight (except mounted ones) pointless. The amount of people who coukd aford a full plate set is few. And the armys wanted quantity and simplicity. So they gave a bunch of people little training with a weapon that takes little skill. So warfare as a whole had changed.
Robert Harris I guess you forgot that early guns ain't that convenient that you can load, lock, point & shoot in the matter of seconds. hell, guns that efficient & convenient wasn't available until 2 centuries ago.
In the days before bullets come with their own propellant & breech loading became common place, loading & getting a gun ready to shoot would've taken MINUTES, far longer than what you need to load a crossbow. before caplock came about, you'd have needed to pull the trigger & wait like 2 seconds for the gun to actually fire.
Furthermore, unlike guns today where you can even fire underwater reliably, guns back then were useless when they got wet, because the powder won't ignite at all. & speaking of powder, unlike propellants today, gunpowder was frickin' dirty. fire one shot & you get clouded in smoke, making aiming very damn inaccurate, which was made worse since they use pellets instead of bullets, making their effective range laughably short & the spread too wide to control.
I can fire and reload a matchlock in under a minute. However keeping that firerate for hours would be difficult.
Man I can't escape this guy. Went back in time and he's still everywhere!
Regarding mail it was actually very tough, (idk which one it was, William of Jumieges/Orderic Vitalis/William of Poitiers) there are various accounts of battles around northern France (between 1042-1053). In one particular incident the King of France is unhorsed several times as well as the hero of the chronicle Duke WIlliam, taking direct lance blows at times to their bodies or to their horses (falling several times off a horse, or taking a lance hit would be severe force-trauma) and after that still having the ability to get up and fight must've meant their mail armour was exceptionally well crafted and functional (or the Crusade accounts that some of the knights were so peppered with arrows they looked like hedgehogs - still moving and fighting tho, that's William of Tyre's account, ye a lot of Williams get used to it :P, but that might be on account of the relative weakness of Turkish bows).
This was the best refference to another video ive ever seen :D
So many things made me cringe in this.
The coverage of roman armor was discouraging, but talking about shields in association of early middle ages yet choosing to show late medieval shields made it clear this is rather amateur effort and not worth further viewing.
Actually the axe cut straight through mail so they worried about axes and if u thrust with a sword it killed them
If mail armor had been THAT easy to get through, nobody would have bothered with it.
A full haulberg is heavy and exhausting to wear through an entire battle.
If the increase in protective value is marginal, then the cost is not worth the reward.
If something was used on the battlefield in large numbers and over long time, that is because it was effective.
In the high and late medival periods you see swords that were designed for thrusts and were pretty effective against mail,
but during the times when mail was the primary form of armament, swords had a REALLY hard time getting through it.
I noted you got a date wrong. Rome fell in 476 officially so 500 A.D. is rather a quarter of a century than a whole century after Rome falls.
That's up for debate. The entire Empire didn't just disappear, and power struggles over what was left, even after Rome had been on decline for years, only really finished up around 492 CE, with the death of Odacer (I think I'm spelling that correctly).
No its not. 476 is when the last truly roman emperor was deposed. Say it's up for debate to any college professor and he will laugh at you due to where and who gave us the most concise writings on the Roman empire from a post perspective. Odoacer was truly an outsider. For 3 centuries before Rome's fall, there had been people of all Rome's cultures on the throne but they all had one thing in common, they came from Rome's boundaries. Odoacer didn't.
The Roman Empire didn't officially fall until 1453.
Indeed. Centuries of Western European indoctrination at work, you can't get that out of the system.
Really hope to see more of your channel!
Its not the gun (because armour was bulletproof) it was economy that drove armour of the battlefields. Once combat got more massive and ranged the rich stopped wanting to risk. Since full plate set would cost so much only the rich could have those.
No armor wasnt bulletproof and cavalry mostly used it after 16 century
Armor was relatively bullet proof well into the 18th century. The problem was the sort of bulletproof it was wasn't very useful for most people. It caused you to break your ribs and have heart palpitations rather than a hole in you. You were still out of the fight, just more expensively.
no future Stiff armour > soft armour. If your cuirass plate stopped the bullet then you felt less of a kick than modern soldier in bulletproof vest.
+EnhancedNightmare blacksmiths actualy showed off there skills by testing firing guns point blank into there plate and showing it just leave a dent.
Robert Harris sources for that?
Here on a journey to rewatch, like, and comment on all of Shad's videos to increase his engagement and get the channel back up and running smoothly again. I think this counts too, so here's some full engagement.
Do you have that info graph at the beginning, or the link for it? I'd like to see it closely.
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d7/bd/11/d7bd114fe7e224119476937af50e04bf.jpg
Thank you very much, mate. I really liked the video, by the way.
Here they are in a better format: libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15324coll10/id/130601
Thanks, my friend.
Beautiful charts, thanks for those!
Love this video. Very well spoken and a fellow amateur historian. I love this kind of stuff.
This was interesting, but I wish the reasons for the changes were explained in a more expansive way.
Read maurice de saxe reveries on the art of war
I agree that he could have explained a bit more about why armor became useless, but I hope my explanation helps. While early guns were much less accurate than bows and crossbows, they had one advantage: they were much, MUCH more powerful than them. So powerful that they easily penetrated any armor available at the time. I once read that some blacksmiths DID try to make chestplates thick enough to resist a bullet, but they were simply so heavy that the knights couldn't be expected to wear them. You have to remember, that a soldier just like today, was expected to carry his equipment for very long periods of time, especially during a military campaign. It was cheaper and more practical to not wear any armor at all.
Lolholm I actually already knew that part. >.
SlayerofFiction I'll make a note of it, though an entire book about it might be a bit more information than I'm looking for.
OneOnOne1162 Jeez, I am down to a book a month, I used to read 4 a week.
Like I already said to Shad, you both did a great job here, good structure, many informations in a reasonable timeframe and very entertaining.
But so many things I want to adress are floating in my head right now. I will at some point reply to both, yours and Shads video, just to ask some questions, point things out and of course give my own view on the subjects.
One thing I want to note here though: Your beard my dear sir, is just awesome. Thank you for your time.
sounds good, and thanks!
You forgot about MOST commonly used Roman armor, "Lorica Hamata" that was basicly a mail, mail armor is not medieval invention it was spread before on north by Romans, i think most barbarians got their mails from dead romans but that is just my assumption. Additionaly, mail in medieval times was not the only layer of protection against thrust attacks like spears and arrows, under every mail there was a gambeson that worked a bit like kevlar today (made out of warse materials but worked a bit the same), thats why we can read about knights that were so covered in arrows that they looked like hedghehogs, arrows got thrugh mail but stopped on gambesons, most of warriors fought only in gambesons since mails were expensive.
2 last things, i dont know any proofs on lether armor being a thing in Europe, at least i never heard about any lether armor outside of rpg games (it looks like some of your knowledge came out from these), you cant state something as a fact and misslead people if it is not scientificly confrimed. And last thing, guns were used even in medieval ages, at first primitive but still both guns and armors were used on battlefield together for long time and it was not a big deal, reasons for armor changing into a lighter versions or no at all are diferrent, guns development is one of the reasons but not crucial one, whole combat changed, not only armors.
Voted down, its ok to be interested in something and spread it... but do it correctly and check your facts before you misslead people.
Celts and the German tribes had been making mail for a while but the celts in northern Italy eventually succumbed to the Romans and so the Romans made their own version of mail as they had the production line to mass produce unlike the celts or Germans and leather was found not just in Europe but all over the world even way before the Greek civilisations kicked off.
josh kidd Just because leather was found does not mean if it was armor or if it was commonly used (might be just decoration for special occasions like some roman armors), there was not much of foundings in Europe and it CANNOT be said that it was in use because there are not enaugh sources to confrim it as fact as creator of this video did.
About mail and Romans... i did mentioned that i do not know how did barbarians get mail and i did mention that what i said were just assumptions to not mislead people when i do not have enaugh knowledge, i am glad you have corrected me.
Personally i do believe that leather armor existed since it was not so hard to make, it was easy to get material, and if it was thick it was hard enaugh to withstand some nice hits, but because of lack of evidence we cannot state that it was used as fact.
At the time northern italy was overrun by rome, I really doubt that there was a sizeable manufacture of mail among germanic tribes.
Maciej Różański , It is virtually universally agreed upon that mail armor was invented by the Celts, as the oldest Celt samples of mail armor predate the rise of Rome by hundreds of years. It was never common among Celtic people, but the Romans certainly encountered it among the Gauls first.
Chainmail was very well known by the Romans and they, in the late period, used it a lot, specially in the eastern half after the fall of the west.
I think trying to condense the topic so much looses too much. Chain maille is older than I feel is fairly represented here. And it wasn't just joinery on later more advanced armour. Full chain maille was often worn under even the late medieval full plate and plate maille armour. Padded armour also deserves a key place in this discussion. Overall there seems to be a "this obsoleted that" approach to how this is presented. When very little of it was actually ever replaced. Rather advancements added layers and levels of complexity to preexisting systems of protection.
An aside: I do make the "Chain Maille" distinction so as not to be confused with other forms of Maille. Just like I use the an older spelling so as not to be confused when viewed out of context with postal mail. Though a modernism. I feel it is useful for clarity and classifications' sake.
Nice work and comfortably presented.
The roman used mail! In the early middle ages the mail wasn't some new thing, it had existed for hundreds of years!
Come on, you should know that.
btw, i think this is my second comment on this video on the same complain...
Temporal paradox.
Happens all the "time", but only Gallefeyxians are attuned to it. I noticed the temporal resonant precession right away. Good work to continue on as if nothing had happened.
BTW, the complete list of Times lords is as follows:
Doctors Who, What, When, Where, and, sometimes, Why.
10:31 When you get to a certain level of HEMA fencing skill, you get to the point where your cutting skills are so sharp that one could actually cut through time with their sword to end their future opponent rightly when they were a baby.
You guys are awesome. Love your videos!
Romans wore mail armor, as well as scale and lamellar armor in the later periods of the Empire.
They sure did. I was generalizing for the sake of time. Great responses by the way!
Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm, coming off a bit too brash.
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) No worries. o e of the worst things that can happen to history is for things to not be questioned. I knew going Into this video that vagueness would lead to questions so I was prepared for someone to speak up. 😁
Lorica Hamata is what it's called
+Rodrigo Ugarte (machiavellianFictionist) actually long before lorica segmentata (which was never known as lorica segmentata back these days)
Good points rarely addressed. The shield was made obsolete by the development of plate that was far stronger than a wooden shield. Also, full helms were mostly used for cavalry charges, but parts discarded for the melee for peripheral vision.
In truth most legionnaires, most of the time, wore mail. The segmentata got better PR. It's an amateurish mistake you made there.
Hi, I would like to correct a few details
The way that you talk about roman armor, makes it sound like chainmail armor only entered widespread use in the early middle ages. Which is very wrong.
Chainmail armor was the main type of armor for wealthy Germanic, Gaul, and celtic warriors. Rome adopted chain mail armor from these tribes and utilized it as their main form of armor.
Roman chainmail was called lorica Hamata and it was the most common type of armor used in the western roman empire. Lorica segmentata existed as well but chainmail was much more common.
Basically chainmail was already in widespread use way before the early medieval period
Also this is a small nitpick but you claim that shields "went away" as armor developed to cover more of the body. this is only true for wealthy individuals who could afford expensive armor. Common infantry soldiers used large shields all throughout the medieval Era, because normal infantry did not have the money for full plate armor. So soldiers still needed large shields even when full suits of plate existed
Anyway, this is a pretty informative video, I. Just felt like some things were generalized way too much.
1:58 lmao shout out to Mount & Blade: Warband!
Great work dude!
The "how did you get into my video" things are so cringe
So many comments. A lot of them good points.
I think you might have done yourself a service by making the video longer - covering not just the most expensive armours, and explaining how gunpowder changed the use of armour (instead of insinuating that medieval guns rendered armour obsolete because it effectively pierced it, which is not the reason.)
There is so much misinformation in this video. In the beginning you get Roman armor completely wrong, and in the end you gloss over the adaptation of armor to early firearms. The central point of this video is also wrong as you continue to spread the myth of the evolution of armor as an arms race when it was primarily socio-economic factors and changes in the way war was fought.
War is an arms race
I saw a few comments but again I will reiterated. Lorica simply means harness or armor in Latin. Hamata (Chainmail), Segmentata (segmented plates), and Squamata were in use depending on what part of both Late Roman Republic, Early and later Imperial Times. That is also disregarding Lorica Muscala or plate armor worn by very wealthy officers. I think the issue was Hamata came back into use in Late Imperial Times due to its repearibility. Due to some Germanic Tribes serving as auxiliaries, they were exposed to hamta and thusly developed mail more.
*imagines a lobster army*
the British?
A close-up image of ancient chain mail reveals tiny logos stamped into each one - those rings were machine made. That should give you pause/reflect.
Holy shit its Paulsego's lost brother
Paul, Paul; round as a pommel.
But most of my pommels are square
+EnvyMachinery Doesn't it look like Paul!
Round as a Viking shield then.
This is the second video i watch of this channel. I love it already. I'm going to watch many more of ur videos :) and ur beard is also great
dat m&b warband picture though
Really well explained and presented. Good job.
Armor didn't evolve, it was created by God in its perfect form. Any armor that isn't as perfect as the perfect form armor was put there to test our faith.
Great video. Thank you for this.
Thank you for this very informative, easy to understand video.
But I think we ought to make corrections on some points:
1) Mail isn't an invention of the Middle Ages. It was the heavy armour of antiquity widely used by Romans (perhaps since 5th century BC), who called it lorica hamata. In Domitian's, Trajan's, Hadrian's time (2nd century AD), we see the laminated plate armour (lorica segmentata, but the Romans didn't call it that) as the more common type of legionary armour. Mail hauberk seems to have made a comeback after the reforms of Constantine (4th century AD). Although it is unclear as to why they went back to using lorica hamata, one might speculate that it was more cost effective, easier to maintain and/or manufacture than plate that they began using it again.
2) The statement "helmets became very popular" leaves the wrong impression of "there was a time when helmets weren't commonly used in battle", which isn't true. The helmet, along with the shield, was the essential part of the warrior's/soldier's defence, since antiquity. (Celts, Gauls, Iberian (Hispanic) and Germanic tribes, whom we know as barbarians, used them too. Interestingly enough, Romans adopted the Iberian sword -hence it was called gladius hispaniensis-, and the Gallic helmet since their metalwork and design was better than the theirs, so the Romans learned from them.)
3) "Arrows would go straight through mail"? I don't think so. It would've been abandoned long before, if that was the case. Although mail wasn't great against projectiles at close range, with padding underneath, it would keep you alive, wounded but alive. But if you were to charge under a massive hail of arrows/bolts, and wanted to use a poleaxe to be effective against armour, then you needed a more rigid defence: plate armour. The breastplate (and other plate armour parts) both addressed the issue of blunt force trauma and perfected the ability to deflect cuts, thrusts and projectiles alike. The point was to provide a rigid, angled, polished surface, that would make everything glide off. You didn't want to be a pin cushion, because if something could stick, more would follow through the weak spot and you'd be dead soon. This type of comfortable survivability makes sense, especially in the context of its price and the wearer's social status. Just as a Ferrari is built for speed, and you don't have to repair its engine after speeding each time, so was plate armour built for protection and shouldn't require repairs, only because it was shot by a few arrows, or received some blows. And just like a Ferrari, It costed a fortune to have a plate harness made, so it should've been worth the money.
been a subscriber for a while now...like every vid of yours I watch! gotta say I really enjoy ur videos..very informative and high quality! wish I could find reviews in your style for camera equipment! lol
The two swords you have just under the graphic are exactly the kind I gave out to my groomsmen at my wedding. :)
That Gondorian shield tho! good video.
It’s crazy that after 100’s of years we still use armor that at its foundation is from these early uses
I am a metal fabricator , I just can’t see the manufacturing process to make chain mail back then , it so easy to draw pictures of this stuff than it is to manufacture it for army’s of this stuff, get real , now a days we can easily make this stuff with roll formers , stamping machines .
I saw a video maybe twenty years ago on this lady that made the first chain mail armor suit that she made for shark bite resistance and she went on to explain how she had to put all those links together and just how long it took to make one suit, ( try and order one) she also started making them for movies, prop clothes .
Just amazes me how may solders were fitted for swords, shields, helmets and chain mail without the technology of today. And on top of that they didn’t have acetylene gas so think about what they used to heat metal.
In the year 40,000 they have "powered armor" its a small nuclear reactor that powers fiber bundles to act as a 2nd muscle. It makes the wearer invulnerable to almost everything, including Lazer guns.
Can i just say it out loud ? Your beard and mustache looks majestic:))
Good video. I often use the term "chainmail" because, first, medieval sources themselves show a great deal of flexibility in what they call things (and had no problem with tautologies, redundancies, and saying the same thing more than once); and second, everybody knows what you mean when you say chainmail. I'd rather try to get basic principles straight than to correct people on that particular bit of terminology.
It's a gross over simplification to say that guns made armour obsolete. Guns in Europe predate the most highly developed armours by at least a century. Guns and armour shared the battlefield until the late 17th century, although some types remained in use into the 18th and 19th centuries. It wasn't until this time that firearms could reliably penetrate plate armour. It was possible to make plate armour that was "bullet-proof", but it was impractical.
I like the Gondorian shield in the background.
GREAT INFORMATIVE Video & History! also - The Western Roman Empire fell to the Gothic Tribes in 476 A.D. The Celts, Goth tribes, and the Nordic components invaded and destroyed Roman Empire, but 85% of the Western Roman Army/Legions were actually Gothic Tribes who turned on ROme and "the rest is history". Well done.
Some experts say that it was not the gun, but the evolution of costs, the sizes or armies, and the situation of warfare and battles that changed that. Please revise.
solid content. well done.
Interesting and informative. Well done.
Romans used mail armor since the times of Roman Republic.
Lorica Segmentata was introduced mainly because it was much faster to produce.
But it also required much better facilities to produce and repair than mail (Lorica Hamata)
that why in late days of Roman Empire mail armor once again became dominant.
Additionally mail when taken care of could be used for many decades.
Love the Mount and blade reference!
The gun didn't stop armors usage like is commonly suggested. Gun powder weapons were recorded in Europe since the 1200 and 1300s. Light guns appear in the 1320s. By the 14 and 1500s a helmet would be 'proofed' with a close shot from a matlock pistol.
Great video. Surrounding the fall of Rome though. Romans had given up the use of Lorica segmentata during the the end of the republic and was rarely seen in the imperial empire. That was mainly because it was expensive, difficult to repair and required high maintenance. The Lorica hamata (mail) was actually used before and then replaced the segmentata to fix all the problems mentioned earlier. not saying mail is better, but it was good enough, particularly with roman tactics relying on the shield, the armour the soldier worn is arguably the back up defence. The empire didn't go into the night quickly, it can be attributed to the dilution of its military and its de- professionalization over a century. Concurrent to this was a reduction in trade and labour skill, resulting in the more primitive forms of arms and armour after Rome's fall
well, not quite, its end of use was more around the reign of diocletian in the 3rd century at which point maille and scale took over entirely, along with some early formf of lamellar but those are disputed as of yet...
The lorica hamata which was mail was used by the late roman legions(it was actually always used by by the romans and never completely superceded by the segmenta, the boiled leather cuirass was only used by officers.
Worth mentioning that plate was still used in the renessance as it could still stop early muskets
Thanks, really nice video!! :) :)
leather + gambeson + mail + scales + segmented + Full plate = the Ultimate Combination
One lesson taught by the fate of Richard III is if you are in full plate armor on a battle field you better keep your horse. And in case you've lost it never consider to take off your helmet for a better view and shout around.
Mail was the predominant armor throughout the Roman republic and empire. While Lorica Segmentata is the most well known type of Roman armor, it was only used for a relatively brief period of Roman history and was never implemented completely with all forces.
And he shows mount and blade splash art as a 'middle ages' graphic. Niqqa knows his audience.
Man I came to this video specifically because I wanted to hear more about how armor tried to adapt more to guns and ultimately got outpaced
Good video. I have seen an argument that guns really were not completely responsible for the downfall of armour, and that armour was pretty decent at stopping some of ordinance of the day, as we know at one point long leather coats were issued to British soldiers to stop musket balls. The real downfall of plate armour may have been it's cost coupled with a growing population. Between raw materials, time, craftsmanship and an incredible amount of training it took to be effective, suited knights were expensive. When one employed such knights it meant that one would be limited in the size of army one could have. As the population of Europe grew, more bodies were available, and by shedding the costs of armour, it meant that you could spread the money out, have multiple armies and influence more territories. Thoughts?