Great video! I really appreciate the work you guys put into this channel, this is an excellent resource for studying an otherwise forgotten era of history!
I'm very interested in armor from this period, or more broadly, from about 1550 to 1650. I see a lot of armor aficionados and reenactment focus on the 14th and 15th century, so its very refreshing to see some attention paid to the 16th and 17th century.
Something to consider is that the weight of the armor was fairly well distributed so that it didn't feel that heavy. The cuirass was designed so that not all of the weight was sitting on your shoulder, it narrowed down towards the bottom so that some of the weight was on your waist. The same with mail, except that with mail the weight distribution was accomplished using a belt. Then with a full plate harness, all of that weight gets distributed all across your entire body so wearing a full plate harness probably feels lighter than a modern infantryman does with all of the weight of their bear being on their head and torso.
For comparison, a modern soldier’s load-out is generally between 50 and 70 pounds, but can sometimes weigh more than 120 pounds. Thank you for another interesting and informative video!
It's also a matter of how much you wear it too. In the late 16th and 17th centuries is where we have a lot of chroniclers start writing about how soldiers were beginning to wear their armours less and less, because they did not feel like carrying around that extra weight if it wasn't going to protect them against a common gun of the day anyway. Especially in the humid climates of the Americas, but also back in Europe. 25 pounds is not a whole lot, but once you've been wearing it for a few hours on the march it's a whole different story.
Also, they carry equipment. The harquebus would be a relatively heavy weapon, as would a pike or axe, and they carried hanger swords, powder, shot, maintenance tools, some had grenades, utensils, food, weather resistant clothing, perhaps construction equipment like a shovel, personal trinkets like their money, and other things, so that would need to be taken into account. Many also were in periods of bad weather, disease, high heat or frigid cold or mud, so the effect would be different from today under ideal conditions.
You'd mentioned armor's thickness and composition varying based on what it was meant to defend against. Were Jamestown soldiers equipped for combat with Tsenacomoco primarily (so, arrows and hand-to-hand), or did they prepare more for conflict with Spanish and French colonies in America? Or did that shift as time progressed?
The expectations were that Spain would contest English settlement in the Chesapeake, with the threat likely coming from the south. As far as the English were concerned Span was the threat, and their initial preparation was most like to deal with that type European engagement. The reality though is that conflict was with the Powhatan and they pivoted to that conflict, among the most notable differences being the greater reliance on firearms and all men being armored. In 1613, Captain Samuel Argall on the ship Treasurer and sailing from Jamestown, attacked and raided French settlements at Mount Desert Island, Sainte-Croix Island and Port Royal along the coast of what is now Maine and New Brunswick.
I did a bit of research into this as I wear armor from the 14th century for various events and was interested in the "shot proof" armors of later periods. From the surviving examples of late 16th and early 17th century armors you see the chest plate never really dipping below 4mm thickness with the averages being 5mm-6mm. This is far different from 14th century battlefield grade (competition armor was extra thick to absorb kinetic energy from clubs and blunts used) chest plates where 3mm (arms and legs were 2mm average) is the average thickness and proof against any edged weapon and most polearms. Anything above 3mm was overkill for any form of stabbing or slashing melee weapon including pikes. 5mm-6mm suggests that even munitions grade chest plates for the early colonial periods were built towards making them proof against early firearms. Quality would be the major difference here as munitions grade would be low quality tempered steel while more expensive types would be higher quality refined steels and/or duplex (two sheets hammered together) construction. Oh and a interesting note on the differences between 14th and 17th century breastplates. In your video your chest plate clocked in at 18lbs. My 3mm chest plate made from tempered 1060 steel (iron and carbon no alloys) only weighs 8lbs. Those extra millimeters start to add up.
We wonder about the thickness of the sheet metal you have stated and curious about some examples. Are we talking of Infantry armor or cavalry armor? In the book, “The Armourer and his Craft from the XIth to the XVIth century”, by Charles ffoulkes he states, “Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 cuirasses of pistol proofe with pauldrons. Therefore one set will weigh 28 lbs.” And. “Four hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pair (or 40 sets) of cuirasses without pauldrons. Therefore one set will weigh 11lbs 3 oz.” A hundredweight is 112 lbs., and to achieve these weights for pistol proofed armor our armorer is generally using 16-gauge sheet, or sheet with a thickness of .0625in or 1.588mm.
First off great video. Didnyou have a weight for a jack o plates as well?? Also was there any use of leather buff coat type armor or briganrine armor used in jamestown ??
Yes, brigandine armor was used in Virginia, with the plates turning up in the archaeology at Historic Jamestowne and in the early 1990s in archaeology at Jordan's Journey. Buff coats were probably not used. They had begun to appear in Europe in the early 17th century, but they had not reached the fashion and popularity they would have In the mid-century during the Civil Wars period. The garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and a predecessor to the buffcoat was the jerkin -- www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php We do not yet have a complete reproduction jack coat. We've made sections working out manufacturing techniques, but not yet a complete coat.
@@JYFMuseums thanks for the awesome reply really appreciate it also had some follow up questions . Are leather jenkins of the style you show and talk about thick so they could by used as a standalone armor or were they just used as a under layer or overlayed for the armor? Also what thickness of leather was used on said Jenkins usually?? Secondly with the archeological brigantine evidence what's sizes of plates were used for them and are they ones found just parts and pieces or mostly intact set of plates or fully intact?? Again thanks for the reply 👍🌠🍕
Note that jerkins were made of leather or fabrics. It was not uncommon for jerkins to be made from buff leather, but they were not intended to be a stand alone armor. Rather, jerkins were worn as a protective garment over the wearer's clothing. www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81543 www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81555 www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/771116 We'll have to get back to you regarding the brigandine plate sizes. But, they have been found as pieces and also groups of plates where it appears the brigandine had been discarded and when recovered the plates were still in their overlapping pattern, rivets intact, but the fabrics having rotted away.
good stuff. Also like that you have a helmet hook. Back in the days of Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester MA (now part of Worcester Art Museum), we often (got) asked about how heavy the armor was, usually followed by "how could they see out of the helmet", "are the swords real/sharp" (and no you can't touch them to see if we're telling the truth, nice try kid). Also often got asked what's up with the hook on the knight's chest plate (not understanding the purpose of the lance-stop/arret), and of course, very important, how do you go pee when wearing armor.... It's why having museums & living history interpreters are important because you can't learn much about the armor when it's mounted to a mannequin, and they don't see the supportive garments / arming doublets, padding, etc. that makes it fit you a little better.
Yes! It's that time of year when we have the hum and clicks of the annual cicadas. Back In May we had the emergence of a 13 year brood. Check out that noise in this video ua-cam.com/video/bT_NrkE_Pgw/v-deo.html In the early-17th century, to have facial hair or a beard was the sign of growing from boyhood into manhood. Men had beards. Men of wealth, status, and fashion went a step further and had styled facial hair. Of course we do not have photography, but here are engravings and paintings of some of the men associated with Jamestown- Captain John Smith en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(explorer)#/media/File:Houghton_STC_22790_-_Generall_Historie_of_Virginia,_New_England,_and_the_Summer_Isles,_John_Smith.jpg George Percy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Percy_(governor)#/media/File:George_Percy.jpg He's illustrated with the least facial hair Lord de la Warr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_West,_3rd_Baron_De_La_Warr#/media/File:Thomas_West,_3rd_Baron_De_La_Warr_(1605).jpg Sir Thomas Gates en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gates_(governor)#/media/File:SirThomasGates.jpg Sir Thomas Dale en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dale#/media/File:Sir_Thomas_Dale,_by_Marcus_Gheeraerts_the_Younger_(1609%E2%80%931619).jpg
For perspective, the armor weighs much less than what a mortarman or machine gunner carried from WWII thru today. If I remember correctly, just the baseplate for a WWII US mortar weighed 60lbs and was immensely more awkward to carry than form-fitting armor.
At the time period of the Jamestown Settlement, armor was more like a modern plate carrier; minimal, but protective enough for what it was meant to do: protect your vitals.
Well yes, that's a fair assessment for 17th century infantry armors with their need to balance mobility and protection. There were different considerations for cavalry armors.
@@JYFMuseums to be fair, that's what I gather from looking at the evolution of armor throughout European history. Mainly because of firearms, and their inherent inaccuracies at ranges generally passed 50 to 75 yards, it was seen by most governments of the time that the main target of said gunners was generally the center of human mass. If you had a rifle it was a completely different ball game; you could accurately hit at ranges well beyond that, but the generalities remained the same; you normally weren't aiming for the head or any vitals, you were aiming for the center of mass. Exactly, as we are trained today in our militaries.
Most of our helmets have padded linings, though a couple of the guys are in the middle of replacing their helmet liners and are wearing their Monmouth caps as padding. Do check out this video we posted about a helmet being made - ua-cam.com/video/EngbsKNQIpI/v-deo.html
were horses used in combat by the virginia colonists at all? did the jamestown coloists used billhooks in battle or was it exclusively targetiers and arquebusiers?
The first horses were brought to Virginia in the autumn of 1608, and may have been either 7 or 8 cavalry mounts. They only lasted a year before they were consumed during the Starving Time during the winter of 1609-1610. Horses were brought again in 1612. Militarily they just were not useful. Eight mounts did not make an effective cavalry force and the English made very effective use of boats and ships along the rivers. As far as billhooks about 2000 of them arrived in Virginia in 1623, and probably were pretty quickly were converted to agricultural use. Otherwise, yes the English relied on musketeers and targeteers.
@@JYFMuseums Did the colonists use longbows in colonial virginia? they were kind of on the outward end by that point but they saw some use in the english civil war later on and there were still longbowmen in the elizabethan trained bands
No, the English in Virginia did not use longbows. Sure, as England prepared for the Spanish Armada, archers showed up in the trained bands, but there was the question of what do we do with these guys now? Military theorists such as Sir Roger Williams, had “current” experience fighting in the Low Countries when he wrote his book “A Brief Discourse of War” quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001?view=toc Williams was the prevailing thought on the effectiveness of the bow and the archer’s role in modern warfare -. “To prove Bow men the worst shot used in these days. Touching Bow men, I persuade myself five hundred musketeers are more serviceable than fifteen hundred bowmen; from that rate to the greater numbers in all manner of services: my reasons are thus, among 5,000. Bowmen, you shall not find 1000 good Archers, I mean to shoot strong shots; let them be in the field 3 or 4 months, hardly find of 5000 scarce 500 able to make any strong shot. In defending or assailing any trenches, lightly they must discover themselves to make faire shot; where the others shot spoil them, by reason they discover nothing of themselves unless it be a little through small holes. Few or none do any great hurt 12 or 14 score off; they are not to be compared unto the other shots to line battles, or to march, either in the wings of any battles, or before, as we term them from the Almaine phrase forlorn hope.” As a result of the 1622 Powhatan attack, with the Colony needing a resupply of arms and armor, it seemed that the crown took the opportunity to clean out a lot of old stuff and dump it in Virginia. In 1623 the Colony received equipment such as 400 shirts of mail and 2000 billhooks. That shipment included longbows and arrows, which colonial officials would not allow to be off-loaded. The English had a high regard for the skill of the Powhatan archer and had no interest in the English bow or arrow falling into their hands. The bows were kept aboard the ships and were sent to Bermuda which had no native population and the bows might have been of some use there.
Here's a nice little video on the history of English weights at the start of the 17th century. The weights that English armors were weighed in 😊. ua-cam.com/video/igdzgOqYLDI/v-deo.html The armor weights shown in the video -- Helmet 4 pounds = 1.91kg Quilted Armor 12 pounds = 5.44kg Mail Armor 22 pounds = 9.97kg Plate Armor 18 pounds = 8.16kg Original armors pictured from the Metropolitan Museum of Art Ceremonial Armor 34.5 = 15.64kg Henry VIII's Armor 50.5 = 22.9kg French Heavy Cavalry 77.125 = 34.97kg
To me the weight of the armor is not so much the question as how hot it is. I cannot imagine wearing a wool shirt under chain male under plate armor in the summer Virginia heat.
Flax would likely have been worn rather than wool during the hot seasons. However, understand that metal will work as an insulator if no ventilation is provided. The metal will absorb your body heat and radiate it but that is a slow process. One of the reasons why chainmail cloth based armors persisted in use was it's ability to shed heat vs an enclosed system. Having fought in full 14th cen kit in mock battles, there were more than a few times I separated myself to crack open my chest plate to let in air and douse myself in water due to the building heat.
It's a good ol’ comfortable felt hat with a rakish turned up brim. Felt hats were absolutely common and are found in any number of period illustrations.
@@JYFMuseums i was led to believe tudor/early jacobean hats were all bonnets or felt caps without very wide brims and that the stereotypical cavalier hat appeared a few decades later but it appears im mistaken
take a look at these engravings of Dutch soldiers from 1607, especially the musketeers - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II) felt hats in their various forms were very common, along with Monmouth caps, thrum caps and various other form of knitted caps or flat caps.
Hello may I ask what Armour and Clothes are Called like the name of the Style of the Pants, Shirt, Hat and the Chestplate along with the Shoes even though we didn't see the Shoes and Stockings? this time and would they of been Universal for all European (Western) peoples to be wearing stuff like this or what it Solely English style?, would the Welsh of Worn the Same or would they wear anything different sorry for the Long Question love your videos Thank you
Thank you for the questions. The plate armor is generally referred to as a pikeman’s armor. Regarding the clothing the jacket is referred to as a doublet and the style of breeches are Venetians. If you've not viewed these videos yet, we have two on the topic of early-17th century men's clothing - Clothing of English Man ua-cam.com/video/1PjmD4tDSZM/v-deo.html Clothing of English Gentleman ua-cam.com/video/3dPvPBX1tCE/v-deo.html John Smith's Clothing List ua-cam.com/video/CyqUg5TJmRI/v-deo.html As far as fashion, there were certainly regional fashions and then fashion that crosses international boundaries, especially because of trade & commerce, influences of the upperclasses, and the various military conflicts across Europe. Take a moment to look at the illustrations at this link wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)
The guys in our re-created James Fort are mainly working from the writings of period sword instructors such as Vincent Saviolo and George Silver. Saviolo - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Vincentio_Saviolo About his books - wiktenauer.com/wiki/His_Practise,_in_Two_Bookes_(Vincentio_Saviolo) Silver - wiktenauer.com/wiki/George_Silver About his book - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paradoxes_of_Defence_(George_Silver) A digital copy of Silver's Paradoxes of Defence - quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A12246.0001.001?view=toc
What this tells me, those men who wore this armor were much smaller than today's military infantryman, who carries up to 60 pounds. Except for the professional examples you gave, did they really workout from childhood to wear the heaviest armor? Who would these men be, a personal Knight? Was this a career path back then? 🩷🧡💛💚💙🩵💜❤️
Take a look at Spanish Arms and Armour, by Albert F. Calvert www.gutenberg.org/files/47878/47878-h/47878-h.htm It covers a number of extant examples of child armors. The sons of gentry and nobility would have learned to wear armor as part of their education. They would be rather comfortable in the armor. As far as career paths and personal knights, as a social class they knightly class had gone away and had become the gentry of the early modern age. To be a personal knight was not a career path, but to become a professional officer was. To have that marketable skill, that could be contracted out certainly was a suitable path for gentry. Especially for second and third born sons.
Great video! I really appreciate the work you guys put into this channel, this is an excellent resource for studying an otherwise forgotten era of history!
Thank you and we're glad that you enjoyed the video!
I'm very interested in armor from this period, or more broadly, from about 1550 to 1650. I see a lot of armor aficionados and reenactment focus on the 14th and 15th century, so its very refreshing to see some attention paid to the 16th and 17th century.
Thank you!
Something to consider is that the weight of the armor was fairly well distributed so that it didn't feel that heavy. The cuirass was designed so that not all of the weight was sitting on your shoulder, it narrowed down towards the bottom so that some of the weight was on your waist. The same with mail, except that with mail the weight distribution was accomplished using a belt. Then with a full plate harness, all of that weight gets distributed all across your entire body so wearing a full plate harness probably feels lighter than a modern infantryman does with all of the weight of their bear being on their head and torso.
For comparison, a modern soldier’s load-out is generally between 50 and 70 pounds, but can sometimes weigh more than 120 pounds.
Thank you for another interesting and informative video!
Good point, and you're welcome!
It's also a matter of how much you wear it too. In the late 16th and 17th centuries is where we have a lot of chroniclers start writing about how soldiers were beginning to wear their armours less and less, because they did not feel like carrying around that extra weight if it wasn't going to protect them against a common gun of the day anyway. Especially in the humid climates of the Americas, but also back in Europe.
25 pounds is not a whole lot, but once you've been wearing it for a few hours on the march it's a whole different story.
Also, they carry equipment. The harquebus would be a relatively heavy weapon, as would a pike or axe, and they carried hanger swords, powder, shot, maintenance tools, some had grenades, utensils, food, weather resistant clothing, perhaps construction equipment like a shovel, personal trinkets like their money, and other things, so that would need to be taken into account. Many also were in periods of bad weather, disease, high heat or frigid cold or mud, so the effect would be different from today under ideal conditions.
finally 😍😍😍😍😍 please make more videos of these kinds 😍
Do check out our Primed and Loaded play list - ua-cam.com/play/PLdzBgB_06ByRgZ6JBIkNq_8RMZVvcig22.html
You'd mentioned armor's thickness and composition varying based on what it was meant to defend against. Were Jamestown soldiers equipped for combat with Tsenacomoco primarily (so, arrows and hand-to-hand), or did they prepare more for conflict with Spanish and French colonies in America? Or did that shift as time progressed?
The expectations were that Spain would contest English settlement in the Chesapeake, with the threat likely coming from the south. As far as the English were concerned Span was the threat, and their initial preparation was most like to deal with that type European engagement. The reality though is that conflict was with the Powhatan and they pivoted to that conflict, among the most notable differences being the greater reliance on firearms and all men being armored. In 1613, Captain Samuel Argall on the ship Treasurer and sailing from Jamestown, attacked and raided French settlements at Mount Desert Island, Sainte-Croix Island and Port Royal along the coast of what is now Maine and New Brunswick.
I did a bit of research into this as I wear armor from the 14th century for various events and was interested in the "shot proof" armors of later periods. From the surviving examples of late 16th and early 17th century armors you see the chest plate never really dipping below 4mm thickness with the averages being 5mm-6mm. This is far different from 14th century battlefield grade (competition armor was extra thick to absorb kinetic energy from clubs and blunts used) chest plates where 3mm (arms and legs were 2mm average) is the average thickness and proof against any edged weapon and most polearms. Anything above 3mm was overkill for any form of stabbing or slashing melee weapon including pikes. 5mm-6mm suggests that even munitions grade chest plates for the early colonial periods were built towards making them proof against early firearms. Quality would be the major difference here as munitions grade would be low quality tempered steel while more expensive types would be higher quality refined steels and/or duplex (two sheets hammered together) construction.
Oh and a interesting note on the differences between 14th and 17th century breastplates. In your video your chest plate clocked in at 18lbs. My 3mm chest plate made from tempered 1060 steel (iron and carbon no alloys) only weighs 8lbs. Those extra millimeters start to add up.
We wonder about the thickness of the sheet metal you have stated and curious about some examples. Are we talking of Infantry armor or cavalry armor? In the book, “The Armourer and his Craft from the XIth to the XVIth century”, by Charles ffoulkes he states, “Five hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 cuirasses of pistol proofe with pauldrons. Therefore one set will weigh 28 lbs.” And. “Four hundred (weight) of plates will make 20 pair (or 40 sets) of cuirasses without pauldrons. Therefore one set will weigh 11lbs 3 oz.” A hundredweight is 112 lbs., and to achieve these weights for pistol proofed armor our armorer is generally using 16-gauge sheet, or sheet with a thickness of .0625in or 1.588mm.
First off great video. Didnyou have a weight for a jack o plates as well?? Also was there any use of leather buff coat type armor or briganrine armor used in jamestown ??
Yes, brigandine armor was used in Virginia, with the plates turning up in the archaeology at Historic Jamestowne and in the early 1990s in archaeology at Jordan's Journey. Buff coats were probably not used. They had begun to appear in Europe in the early 17th century, but they had not reached the fashion and popularity they would have In the mid-century during the Civil Wars period. The garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and a predecessor to the buffcoat was the jerkin -- www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php
We do not yet have a complete reproduction jack coat. We've made sections working out manufacturing techniques, but not yet a complete coat.
@@JYFMuseums thanks for the awesome reply really appreciate it also had some follow up questions . Are leather jenkins of the style you show and talk about thick so they could by used as a standalone armor or were they just used as a under layer or overlayed for the armor? Also what thickness of leather was used on said Jenkins usually?? Secondly with the archeological brigantine evidence what's sizes of plates were used for them and are they ones found just parts and pieces or mostly intact set of plates or fully intact?? Again thanks for the reply 👍🌠🍕
Note that jerkins were made of leather or fabrics. It was not uncommon for jerkins to be made from buff leather, but they were not intended to be a stand alone armor. Rather, jerkins were worn as a protective garment over the wearer's clothing.
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81543
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81555
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/771116
We'll have to get back to you regarding the brigandine plate sizes. But, they have been found as pieces and also groups of plates where it appears the brigandine had been discarded and when recovered the plates were still in their overlapping pattern, rivets intact, but the fabrics having rotted away.
Another AMAZING video ..... Thank you !
Our pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it.
good stuff. Also like that you have a helmet hook. Back in the days of Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester MA (now part of Worcester Art Museum), we often (got) asked about how heavy the armor was, usually followed by "how could they see out of the helmet", "are the swords real/sharp" (and no you can't touch them to see if we're telling the truth, nice try kid). Also often got asked what's up with the hook on the knight's chest plate (not understanding the purpose of the lance-stop/arret), and of course, very important, how do you go pee when wearing armor.... It's why having museums & living history interpreters are important because you can't learn much about the armor when it's mounted to a mannequin, and they don't see the supportive garments / arming doublets, padding, etc. that makes it fit you a little better.
Those cicadas are going crazy! great video
I noticed that both of you are, like me, bearded men. What was the fashion for facial hair at Jamestown?
Yes! It's that time of year when we have the hum and clicks of the annual cicadas. Back In May we had the emergence of a 13 year brood. Check out that noise in this video ua-cam.com/video/bT_NrkE_Pgw/v-deo.html
In the early-17th century, to have facial hair or a beard was the sign of growing from boyhood into manhood. Men had beards. Men of wealth, status, and fashion went a step further and had styled facial hair. Of course we do not have photography, but here are engravings and paintings of some of the men associated with Jamestown-
Captain John Smith en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smith_(explorer)#/media/File:Houghton_STC_22790_-_Generall_Historie_of_Virginia,_New_England,_and_the_Summer_Isles,_John_Smith.jpg
George Percy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Percy_(governor)#/media/File:George_Percy.jpg
He's illustrated with the least facial hair
Lord de la Warr en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_West,_3rd_Baron_De_La_Warr#/media/File:Thomas_West,_3rd_Baron_De_La_Warr_(1605).jpg
Sir Thomas Gates en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gates_(governor)#/media/File:SirThomasGates.jpg
Sir Thomas Dale en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dale#/media/File:Sir_Thomas_Dale,_by_Marcus_Gheeraerts_the_Younger_(1609%E2%80%931619).jpg
For perspective, the armor weighs much less than what a mortarman or machine gunner carried from WWII thru today. If I remember correctly, just the baseplate for a WWII US mortar weighed 60lbs and was immensely more awkward to carry than form-fitting armor.
Laughs in a later 17th century naval impression. (Then whines as I carry all the cooking implements)
Dont forget to cry when you have to move a 252 gallon cask.
@@JYFMuseums I drove a tank in the Army, I just cry.
At the time period of the Jamestown Settlement, armor was more like a modern plate carrier; minimal, but protective enough for what it was meant to do: protect your vitals.
Well yes, that's a fair assessment for 17th century infantry armors with their need to balance mobility and protection. There were
different considerations for cavalry armors.
@@JYFMuseums to be fair, that's what I gather from looking at the evolution of armor throughout European history.
Mainly because of firearms, and their inherent inaccuracies at ranges generally passed 50 to 75 yards, it was seen by most governments of the time that the main target of said gunners was generally the center of human mass.
If you had a rifle it was a completely different ball game; you could accurately hit at ranges well beyond that, but the generalities remained the same; you normally weren't aiming for the head or any vitals, you were aiming for the center of mass. Exactly, as we are trained today in our militaries.
I see you, de Gheyn pikeman's pot. Do you all have those padded or are you using separate knit caps as the padding?
Most of our helmets have padded linings, though a couple of the guys are in the middle of replacing their helmet liners and are wearing their Monmouth caps as padding. Do check out this video we posted about a helmet being made - ua-cam.com/video/EngbsKNQIpI/v-deo.html
were horses used in combat by the virginia colonists at all? did the jamestown coloists used billhooks in battle or was it exclusively targetiers and arquebusiers?
The first horses were brought to Virginia in the autumn of 1608, and may have been either 7 or 8 cavalry mounts. They only lasted a year before they were consumed during the Starving Time during the winter of 1609-1610. Horses were brought again in 1612. Militarily they just were not useful. Eight mounts did not make an effective cavalry force and the English made very effective use of boats and ships along the rivers. As far as billhooks about 2000 of them arrived in Virginia in 1623, and probably were pretty quickly were converted to agricultural use. Otherwise, yes the English relied on musketeers and targeteers.
@@JYFMuseums Did the colonists use longbows in colonial virginia? they were kind of on the outward end by that point but they saw some use in the english civil war later on and there were still longbowmen in the elizabethan trained bands
No, the English in Virginia did not use longbows. Sure, as England prepared for the Spanish Armada, archers showed up in the trained bands, but there was the question of what do we do with these guys now? Military theorists such as Sir Roger Williams, had “current” experience fighting in the Low Countries when he wrote his book “A Brief Discourse of War” quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001?view=toc
Williams was the prevailing thought on the effectiveness of the bow and the archer’s role in modern warfare -.
“To prove Bow men the worst shot used in these days.
Touching Bow men, I persuade myself five hundred musketeers are more serviceable than fifteen hundred bowmen; from that rate to the greater numbers in all manner of services: my reasons are thus, among 5,000. Bowmen, you shall not find 1000 good Archers, I mean to shoot strong shots; let them be in the field 3 or 4 months, hardly find of 5000 scarce 500 able to make any strong shot. In defending or assailing any trenches, lightly they must discover themselves to make faire shot; where the others shot spoil them, by reason they discover nothing of themselves unless it be a little through small holes. Few or none do any great hurt 12 or 14 score off; they are not to be compared unto the other shots to line battles, or to march, either in the wings of any battles, or before, as we term them from the Almaine phrase forlorn hope.”
As a result of the 1622 Powhatan attack, with the Colony needing a resupply of arms and armor, it seemed that the crown took the opportunity to clean out a lot of old stuff and dump it in Virginia. In 1623 the Colony received equipment such as 400 shirts of mail and 2000 billhooks. That shipment included longbows and arrows, which colonial officials would not allow to be off-loaded.
The English had a high regard for the skill of the Powhatan archer and had no interest in the English bow or arrow falling into their hands. The bows were kept aboard the ships and were sent to Bermuda which had no native population and the bows might have been of some use there.
Great video! If you guys only use also kilograms, for those using metric system, it would be even greater ;)
Here's a nice little video on the history of English weights at the start of the 17th century. The weights that English armors were weighed in 😊. ua-cam.com/video/igdzgOqYLDI/v-deo.html
The armor weights shown in the video --
Helmet 4 pounds = 1.91kg
Quilted Armor 12 pounds = 5.44kg
Mail Armor 22 pounds = 9.97kg
Plate Armor 18 pounds = 8.16kg
Original armors pictured from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Ceremonial Armor 34.5 = 15.64kg
Henry VIII's Armor 50.5 = 22.9kg
French Heavy Cavalry 77.125 = 34.97kg
To me the weight of the armor is not so much the question as how hot it is. I cannot imagine wearing a wool shirt under chain male under plate armor in the summer Virginia heat.
Flax would likely have been worn rather than wool during the hot seasons. However, understand that metal will work as an insulator if no ventilation is provided. The metal will absorb your body heat and radiate it but that is a slow process. One of the reasons why chainmail cloth based armors persisted in use was it's ability to shed heat vs an enclosed system. Having fought in full 14th cen kit in mock battles, there were more than a few times I separated myself to crack open my chest plate to let in air and douse myself in water due to the building heat.
what kind of hat is the one worn in the end of the video and how common were they to the late tudor/early jacobean period?
It's a good ol’ comfortable felt hat with a rakish turned up brim. Felt hats were absolutely common and are found in any number of period illustrations.
@@JYFMuseums i was led to believe tudor/early jacobean hats were all bonnets or felt caps without very wide brims and that the stereotypical cavalier hat appeared a few decades later but it appears im mistaken
take a look at these engravings of Dutch soldiers from 1607, especially the musketeers - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)
felt hats in their various forms were very common, along with Monmouth caps, thrum caps and various other form of knitted caps or flat caps.
Hello may I ask what Armour and Clothes are Called like the name of the Style of the Pants, Shirt, Hat and the Chestplate along with the Shoes even though we didn't see the Shoes and Stockings? this time and would they of been Universal for all European (Western) peoples to be wearing stuff like this or what it Solely English style?, would the Welsh of Worn the Same or would they wear anything different sorry for the Long Question love your videos Thank you
Thank you for the questions. The plate armor is generally referred to as a pikeman’s armor. Regarding the clothing the jacket is referred to as a doublet and the style of breeches are Venetians. If you've not viewed these videos yet, we have two on the topic of early-17th century men's clothing -
Clothing of English Man ua-cam.com/video/1PjmD4tDSZM/v-deo.html
Clothing of English Gentleman ua-cam.com/video/3dPvPBX1tCE/v-deo.html
John Smith's Clothing List ua-cam.com/video/CyqUg5TJmRI/v-deo.html
As far as fashion, there were certainly regional fashions and then fashion that crosses international boundaries, especially because of trade & commerce, influences of the upperclasses, and the various military conflicts across Europe. Take a moment to look at the illustrations at this link wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)
@@JYFMuseums Thank you very much
You're welcome!
Ha ha you guys look rather “Cavalier”. I have interest in how the fencing shown is constructed?
The guys in our re-created James Fort are mainly working from the writings of period sword instructors such as Vincent Saviolo and George Silver.
Saviolo - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Vincentio_Saviolo
About his books - wiktenauer.com/wiki/His_Practise,_in_Two_Bookes_(Vincentio_Saviolo)
Silver - wiktenauer.com/wiki/George_Silver
About his book - wiktenauer.com/wiki/Paradoxes_of_Defence_(George_Silver)
A digital copy of Silver's Paradoxes of Defence - quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A12246.0001.001?view=toc
What this tells me, those men who wore this armor were much smaller than today's military infantryman, who carries up to 60 pounds. Except for the professional examples you gave, did they really workout from childhood to wear the heaviest armor? Who would these men be, a personal Knight? Was this a career path back then?
🩷🧡💛💚💙🩵💜❤️
Take a look at Spanish Arms and Armour, by Albert F. Calvert www.gutenberg.org/files/47878/47878-h/47878-h.htm It covers a number of extant examples of child armors.
The sons of gentry and nobility would have learned to wear armor as part of their education. They would be rather comfortable in the armor. As far as career paths and personal knights, as a social class they knightly class had gone away and had become the gentry of the early modern age. To be a personal knight was not a career path, but to become a professional officer was. To have that marketable skill, that could be contracted out certainly was a suitable path for gentry. Especially for second and third born sons.