Medieval Crossbow vs Flexible Armours
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- We shoot three types of medieval armour (Gambeson, Aketon and Mail) with three types of medieval bolt heads (Barbed, Needle point and Plate Cutter) from a 350lbs, 13thC crossbow. How well does each type of bolt work against each type of armour? - this film will show you.
If you would like to support my work on this channel you can always buy my fantastic reproduction medieval weaponry available here todcutler.com
Crossbow is available from todsworkshop.com
Budget medieval knives, daggers and weapons are available from todcutler.com/...
Needle bodkin and short bodkin heads from www.medievalar...
Medieval Mythbusting - Arrows verses Armour. • ARROWS vs ARMOUR - Med...
Music www.jsayles.com...
A couple months ago my channel got hijacked and it was truly awful. It has happened to a lovely crafting site called "Engels Coach Shop". please help them, like the community helped me, and mail YT or twitter them and bring it to their attention. Just mail YT on creator-support@youtube.com
Done
I wondered what happened to Dave. Thanks for let us know!
Done
Done
Looks like the channel's been removed entirely. Not the outcome I'd hoped to see, to put it lightly.
Edit: Channel's back! Happy days!
What it really underlines again is how effective all types of period armors are in reality, a far cry from Hollywood where they stand up to impacts like wet tissue paper.
Absolutely
@@tods_workshop but what about the range. How far can warbows and crossbow penetrate armor? 250 yards? 100? And what about the chinese crossbow vs the european crossbow. I heard the chinese crossbow it's stretched farther
@@markcorrigan3930
I don't think arrows and bolts lose that much speed due to drag, correct me if I am wrong. I suspect arrows might even have better penetration at range since the arrow has more time to stop wobbling, making it more likely to be perfectly aligned at the moment of impact.
@@InqWiper arrows and bolts lose ALOT of speed and velocity over a farther range. Crossbows especially are not very useful at range but close up behind shields they're lethal
This depiction of armour has always irritated me. No soldier worth is salt would bother with armour if it did nothing for him.
A bunch of Norwegian longbowmen do a similar test almost each summer at Tønsberg medieval festival. We use a gambeson/gambeson and mail over a target of some kind, bows from 40# to 130#, and the same kind of heads (both sharpened and dull) as you. We have the same results as you, every time.
I would love to watch some of the videos if you have links
@@2008davidkang I don't have any video of it, sorry. I'm usually one of the archers so I don't film it, however some of the audience usually does. I'm not aware of any of those clips being uploaded to UA-cam though....
@@jacobweisth7180 If you are there this year, would you be willing to take some footage or ask somebody to take some footage? For Science! (and my personal curiosity)!
@Abu Troll al cockroachistan I believe a solid steel bolt would be to heavy to accelerate fast enough with such a short power stroke to have any kind of range. The balance would also be bad, unlesd you had a very heavy head on it.
Not to mention it would be to expensive to use in large numbers, historically.
Unfortunately crossbows are illegal in Norway, so I won't be able to test it.... 😕
@@thecashier930 It's currently highly uncertain if they will arrange it this year. It depends on how the corona-situation develop over the next months. If it happens, I'll be sure to get some footage.
I love the weapon vs armour videos. They help you understand how the warfare really looked like in middle ages.
Minus the fact that there would be a man running towards and killing them
@Max Paine It's also why type 16 arrowheads were narrow and long and weighted upwards to 18 grams for more kinetic energy on impact, in comparison to this broad broadhead intended for hunting and/or unarmoured horses.
7:17 "I was hoping it would be defeated by that." Guy in an Aketon with a bolt in his gut thinks "Me too man, me too..."
Tod, draw a scale on the wooden shaft of your bolts so you can measure the penetration without pulling everything apart!
Todd time and time again delivers content the history channel would have been proud to have years ago before it became about aliens. Doing Medieval history proud Todd, keep up the amazing work!
Thanks you, thats very kind
@@tods_workshop It's the truth.
Eric and nazis......
Ailens and nazis.......
A wierd combination really for a history tv channel...
I think this might be his best video yet. The pacing is excellent, and his joy in learning is more infectious than COVID 19!
I second to this! I hope to see Tod and Modern History TV do some projects together! Both channels are invaluable!
Hi, an actual tailor w. Renaissance hobby here. The results are absolutely logical to every tailor who has made eyelets by a sewing bodkin. Linen and cotton are very resistant and need a lot of force to penetrate without cutting. However, introduce a cutting tip even gently (shear tip, knife etc.) and it's like nothing - multiple layers included. Slashing cuts are more averted, but when pushing in, a cutting tip becomes a tremendous killer. Also, a nice fleshwound...
Gambeson and aketon "choke" the bodkins and pad against the hit. I shall have to do some experiments but I believe I could probably make one (using Renaissance methods) that is rather resistant to needle point bodkin as well. And needle point, well, it is logically against mail and more loosely stacked underlayer.
Isn't this why sewing needles are polished to a smooth surface, to avoid the bunching and choking? A rough surface on the needle (and by extension, the bodkin point) catches the fibers of the cloth or padding, causing more resistance - at least in my mind.
@@TheCoffeehound Absolutely, and tailors generally have their favourite brands of needles. I have tried the special coated ones, but my favourites are John James' Betweens - they have the perfect mix of low resistance but still some (for control). However, if I handsew dense cotton, linen or anything that is tight and grippy, those modern low-friction coated ones are the way to go.
(Funny detail: The loop end of the needle is also sharpened a bit, for better control on a metal thimble. Thus, I cringe every time I see someone sewing without a thimble. It has to be used for proper technique.)
@@Nemioke callouses help if you can't find a thimble, or use a scrap of linen over the thumb or index finger. But I am by no means a tailor, just a poor guy who , shoddily, mends his own clothes when necessary.
@@blairbuskirk5460 They really don't help - as the part you use for sewing with a correct technique isn't on the skin part. You never push with a fingertip or even a side - the correct contact point is pretty much dead-on on the nail and flesh border. Using a thimble is paramount and it is the best thing one can do to have a consistent, good stitch. You use the same stitch on everything you sew.
My worst thing has been when I pushed seriously to a triple seam, having a divot in my thimble to give up - and the tail of the needle went straight through the thimble and my finger, jamming on the other side. That really woke me up... (yes. ouch)
After the fact, this makes perfect sense. you eed a cutting edge to cut. Needle bobkin just tried to push the interlocked fibers aside which gets increasingly harder. Still, ex ante, to me at least, I was thinking needle bobkin was going to do awesome on fiber.
Go Jussi! Go Tod!
Given that the needle bodkin needed to spread the fibres of the aketon apart to penetrate, and the fleshcutter was able to sever those fibres and thus had less resistance to overcome, I can see how it was able to penetrate deeper. Still a surprise to see it happen.
The inverse applies to the mail: the needle has the narrowest cross section, and thus experiences the less resistance. And the other designs are much broader, and so they can't get through. The cutting action of the flesh cutter is no longer helping it.
yeah. you wouldnt think it would have this outcome but having watched it we can see why and the science behind it.
I'm thinking that to get a good allround armour piercing bolt head, you could try fullering the needle bodkin, giving it a four or thre pronged star shaped cross section, a bit like the Nagant bayonet where the ridges provide the stiffness needed to pry apart mail and the fullers prevent cloth fibres and flesh from sticking to it, reducing friction to the sides and providing a nastier wound.
@@SonsOfLorgar I agree, and with the hollowed flats the corners could actually be little edges to cut the fibers. Shame no medievals either thought of this or just didn't think it worth the effort, at least that we know of.
This was my thought, it's the same science behind kevlar; spreading the fibres takes a lot of energy.
@@SonsOfLorgar I would be interested to see a test with such a head.
It might work exactly as you described, or the increased surface area might stop it, because the skin friction increases.
I greatly admire how Tod will say there are simply things we don't know. So many people make wild claims to know exactly how things are made of were used and that's just not the case. My hat's off to both Tod's skill as a craftsman AND a historian
skallagrim: fixes his targets with straps
Tod: just nails it xD
I like how he used a 6 inch nail to. Massively over kill lol
Yeah, when I watched I had no idea why Skallagrim didn't just nail the gel in place. Maybe he was too afraid to dent his swords?
@@Nardypants to be fair, the type of force Skall was applying (shear force) is more likely to tear when nailed: imagine tugging on it cross ways. Also, Skall said he wasnt that smart.
Pun intended? :P
@@yesacwerdna It wouldn't have sheared away if the cloth he was testing was nailed down like Tod did, almost none of his swords went through the cloth anyway!
Just heads up about your comment on ballistics gel. Ballistics gel is not a simulation of human tissue. It was developed as a rough average of all tissues in the body and provides a consistent test media to compare projectiles, along side real world statistical data. The biggest issue you run into when testing arrows against ballistics gel is that the gel is very tacky. You'll have arrows that have passed straight through boar only penetrate 12cm in gel.
Useful to know, thanks.
Damn UA-cam is full is smart people. See this is what I come here for 👍🏻
The needle bodkin is called "perce-maille" in french, literrally : mail piercer
they ain’t lie
that perce-maille can pierce mail
"I can conclude"
That you want mail over gambeson
If you can afford it
Which is what we see
@@wierdalien1 yes
Or gambeson over mail.
@@Glimmlampe1982 So that would be three layers correct?
@@dasparado kind of, thin jacket, then mail, then gambeson.
But I would rate the jacket as normal clothing
(Which was kind of armor, compared to our modern 'rags')
Among other things, this also demonstrates why you'd want to wear cloth armor ON TOP OF mail for added protection.
Absolutely.
I'm sure in their is a few ways of wearing armor. Most common from middle age paintings its mail on top of gambison and a shirt or something to show who was your lord was on top of your mail. Like a banner.
I would have liked to see him test maille + gambeson.
It would be hotter than hell in that thing
Yeah hot. But would you rather be hot than dead lol. But winter is probably good for armour cause gambison varies in thickness.
I found myself thinking, while watching his, of how similar this is to a tank crew switching between tank rounds based on the type of target they're trying to engage...
To some extent I would imagine they did
Tod, draw a scale on the wooden shaft of your bolts so you can measure the penetration without pulling everything apart!
Brilliantly simple. Top marks
Brilliance
Or simply use differently-coloured pens (if re-using bolts) to draw around the initial impact point for a more accurate depth gauge..?
So, in conclusion, the safest thing is to be behind the crossbow...
& if that's not possible a wall, if that's also not possible a shield would be of use.
Todd has +10 bonus to smithing
2:46 This is what makes this channel great.
Yay! More materials testing! I love these videos Tod, they're interesting.
Some cheeky bloke: *wears mail over gambeson*
@@sewpungyow5154 that is exactly what everyone did (if they could aford mail that is)
just one thing though, its debated if people wore plate over gamberson. Its believed they instead used the arming doublet which may or may not be padded
@@arthurgrmg2850 Though it can be said that the arming doublet is just a gambeson like armor with mail attached though it depends
@@sirsteam181 from what i understand the doublet is much less thick than the gamberson, and it might have not been padded at all
@@arthurgrmg2850 The thing is with the Doublet it isn't one singular form with multiple iterations with examples such as what you mention and the thing I've mention though it both largely depends on when and where
@@sirsteam181 indeed, there is a lot of discussion on the subject, a lot of "maybes" and few certainties
The platecutter appears to be a case of "we're not getting through either way, so we might aswell try and break something squishy behind the armor".
Weeb Extraordinaire I’d imagine it does a bit better against actual plate armour
@@SladetheBlade.. I sort of doubt it tbh. If it bounced off mail I can't really see it punching through actual plate.
@@Tepid24 Yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't bounce there. Seems you would use those bolt heads for the same reason you would use blunt weapons against plate armored opponents
the shape of the plate cutter is very important. Perhaps he hasnt perfected the shape of the head. Alternatively maybe a plate cutter was never meant to penetrate and was meant to distribute the impact force to the target.
My though is that those heavy short-bodkin bolts would have been launched out of a much heavier crossbow when they were employed against plate. That 350lb crossbow is still pretty light, after all.
In Spanish, cotton is "algodón", even closer to the Arabic pronunciation. Great video, as ususal. I also love that you have the hands of an actual manual laborer, a guy hammering stuff. No manicures at Tod's.
I think the problem is that the fleash cutter is cutting the fibers while the shape of the needle is trying to push them apart and thus creates more resistance.
8:37 "this is really gonna mess your day up", that's got to be the understatement of the movie :-)
Todd showing his arrows off like a true beauty youtuber! That little detail made me giggle
This matches very well with what the Scythians used to shoot, against enemies that probably mostly had textile armor: broad-bladed arrow heads with long cutting surfaces.
id be interested to see if sharpening the needle bodkin to have 90° chisel like edges would improve performance against fabric.
its seems a big assumption that arrowheads wouldn't be well sharpened. sharpening your arrowheads would be like cleaning your rifle in modern times as a way to pass the time waiting for something to happen.
Probably not always the case. If you're diligent enough to do it to your personal quiver then yes. But say if you are expected to do a lot of shooting, then you'd have wagons upon wagons worth of arrows (like Agincourt for instance, hence why he said munition) so l doubt they'd do that amount of work, especially after a tiring day of marching, battling or other exhausting work. After all most medieval armies aren't as disciplined as the roman legions.
@@2008davidkang great points david
@@2008davidkang it will still be interesting what difference a nicely sharpened and polished arrowhead does
They would only be sharp for the first few shots though. After they had been fired back and forth a few times the edge would definitely be off. In some battles some arrows were potentially fired as many as 8 times.
@@gordonlawrence1448 Yep, I can imagine a 'porcupine' knight covered in arrows from the opposing side approaching a group of archers that would swarm him and pick off the arrows from him like a helper fish cleaning parasites from a whaleshark.
Yes, the words Gambeson and Aketon both come from the words for cotton undarmors/primary armors in use in the 10th-13th centuries in the Byzantine and Arabic sphere. In the case of Gambeson it's a horrendous butchering of the word *Vamvakion* from *Vamvax* (Cotton). The *Vamvakion* was a cotton *Kavadion* (the exact same thing, but in cotton or linen/wool).
Doeskin over 30 layers is also relatively similar to what the Romans record, which is Libyan Hide (modern Morroccan Goatskin is the closest) over linen "one or two finger widths in thickness". The difference was the Romans didn't sew the "Libyan Hide" directly onto the garment, but wore it as another layer decorated with *Podones* ("Paws") which is the decorative scallops we see sticking out under metal armor in the art. So taking a 15th century source on how to make a gambeson and interpolating it back to 1250 seems reasonable considering we have evidence for this practice of using an animal hide over linen going as far back as Classical Antiquity. Especially considering availability of material between 1250 and 1400 should be reasonably the same in Western Europe.
Great video! I really wanna see someone test Hunnic/Avar/etc. Trilobate heads (three-bladed) against fabric armor. They tear improperly made shields apart as the research in "The North in the Shadow of the Roman Empire" showed.
You would probably get different results if you replace the foam with ballistics gel, I think flexible armour would do much better. Maybe an idea for a future video?
Yep need a ballistics gel backing, or clay.
Ando you also do not shoot the body nailed to the wall, too....
In a battlefield a Person with armor would also move in your direction and not stand still.
Ye the overall performance of the armour would probably change but this works well as a comparison of the bolts as the only variable for each armour type
Maybe or maybe not. Ballistic gel was designed to test bullets. When it comes to blades and arrows it tends to be too grippy and bouncy. Would be better to hang up a pig and put the armor on that.
Materials made of fibres tend to have great torsion strength, but low shearing resistance.
We also see this with modern kevlar. While useful at stopping bullets up to a certain point, kevlar is useless against arrows fitted with cutting heads; such as broad-heads.
2:17 al qutn roughly means "the cotton"
in spanish the word is related to "algodón" which... as you may have guessed, means cotton
A lot of tests have found that heads similar to your "flesh bolt" do surprisingly well against armor. The famous type-16 arrowhead is but a smaller version of the same shape, & it has performed solidly against various protective gear. Sharpness seems to matter a bunch, especially against fabric defenses.
In central and Eastern Europe as well as in Asia people would use silk for their textile armors. I imagine that would make them even more effective. In the XVI century there are also mentions of "bulletproof" (bullet-resistant) padded zupans made from layers of carded silk.
The flesh cutter tip seems to cut a slice through the fabric that allows the shaft to slide through while the needle bodkin punctures the fabric but the gradually increasing diameter from tip to shaft can't overcome the friction and pressure of the fabric as it tries to expand the initial puncture hole
Loved the video. my thoughts: the fleshcutter even though it looks larger, actually has a smaller surface area than the needle bodkin. a narrow plate that is 6 times wider than a round tip has only 2/3 the striking surface area. additionally, since it cuts a wide opening, the shaft has no issue following through.
would be interesting to see a test against heavy 13th century armour.
in norwegian sources dated around 1270, a knight was armoured thus: one layer of "soft linen aketon", then over that maille, and over that again soft linen aketon, but without arm protection.
we also have a source for gambeson construction dated from between 1170-1270, namely the bussy saint martin sleeve.
it is constructed like this:
brown taffeta silk, 34 x 39-48 threads/cm
white linen canvas 24x26 threads/cm
cotton stuffing.
the protection varies on the upper and lower part of the sleeve.
upper arm: silk - cotton - 2 layers of linen - cotton -silk
lower arm: silk - cotton - cotton - silk
there was no torso with the sleeve, but i think it's reasonable to assume it is either the same construction as the upper arm, but double aketons.
e.g: aketon 1 - aketon 2
or more layers of linen is sown inbetween the cotton filling. possible a triple layer like: silk - cotton - 2x linen - cotton - 2x linen - cotton - silk
thanks for posting this info very interesting.
Great video, fun to watch! One thing that you should probably want to try is an Gambeson ON TOP of mail armor.
According to Medieval Byzantine manuals such as the Sylologe Tacticorum Roman cataphracts and even lancers were supposed to wear padded armor on top of metal armor.
this reminds me of a video by
ola onsrud "knight in the13th century"
in which he discribes a thinner aketon under the mail and a thicker gambeson over the mail
and also says you could also have an aketon under gambeson without mail
I very much appreciate the "we don't exactly know how it worked, but we make do the best we can" attitude. Very down to earth. Thanks mate!
This was exactly what I expected.
- Your "flesh arrow" is too wide if it is suppose to be a type 16 arrowhead. Narrow the arrowhead down and it will go through. So is the needle bodkin at the widest point right in front of the shoulder.
- The prod on that crossbow is made of steel. Crossbows from this time period often had a composite prod. This will give you ahigher velocity for the same draw weight. To tests a composite prod of 350lb would probably require a steel prod of something like 450lb. You would have to experiment to get it right by shooting the crossbows over a chronograph. Just the slightest drop in velocity will cause the the kinetic energy on impact to drop significantly.
- Put flesh behind the armour.
As a former machinist, I have two observations to offer. The optimum sharpening angle is very material specific, particularly on penetrations cuts like a drill. Also, relief behind the cutting edge is crucial. A flat pyramid bodkin will be worse than a concave grind, regardless of angle.
Well if the outer layer is deer hide, the broad head would slice right through it as it enters. Even if it enters at a slight angle...The needle head needs to hit dead on to get the full effect..Slightly off center and you're wasting alot of energy realigning the bolt as it enters and losing some penetration power
I don’t even bother with other channels videos regarding arms and armor, anymore.
Tod for the definitive win😎
I'd sell organs to be able to afford one of Tods crossbows. Maybe not *my* organs, but organs all the same.
Get organised & take a job in a music shop . . .
I always love watching Tod's experiments and hearing his reasoning behind things. Historically accurate or not, this is fascinating stuff. I'm sure they tested things like this back then as well; it would be really cool if we could bring back some of the weapon developers from those times and watch them and Tod talk about designs and try things out.
I had to keep going back to the beginning of the video to when you said, “raw cotton is this stuff, here!”.
For whatever reason, I found the way you said that to be hilarious 😆
same here, it was from a different cut and I did have a rather weird start
great video! I kind of thought of these outcomes. I have heard that the needle Botkin was designed specifically to destroy the rings of chainmail but never heard of it being designed to destroy fabric.
The way you put the bolts on your palm at 0:18 suggests you've had a lot of experience with the autofocus not doing what you want...
Oh good point, I thought it was for contrast against his shirt.
Everyone dose that on UA-cam. It's absolutely fine and the right thing to do if you want to get the camera focused on a small object instead of your face. Most cameras have face detection and focus on a face if on is in frame.
I wrote a historical fiction novel whereby one of the main characters survives a crossbow arrow while wearing a gambeson. A reviewer called that ridiculous. Thanks for proving that my character`s survival was at least plausible!
Great video but I have a question. Could you test what would happen if someone wore Mail over a Gambeson? Would this make the person survive all types of those bolts?
You'd probably do the reverse. For similar reasons as that gambesons were sometimes worn over plate (see the arrow test videos). In fact, people probably wore it over plate because they'd already been wearing it over mail.
Myoll Tülvür was wondering exactly that
There are quite a few Crusader accounts where knights so equipped would look like pincushions with how many arrows were caught in their armor after a battle. But yes, I'd expect that to handle both the needle bodkin and the broadhead just fine. The bodkin's penetration would likely be lower than against the gambeson alone, even, thanks to the maille slowing it down a bit even before it starts tangling in the fibers.
He would first have to swap out that prod on the crossbow with a more efficient composite one and use a proper, narrow type 16 arrowhead and a needle bodkin narrow around the shoulder. They will not survive I he did it right. You have to ask yourself why he didn't do this and said "I was hoping it would be defeated by that" at 07:16. That is what is called bias.
@@earthknight60 Though it was stated that it was in French Fashion to do it like that but I can see it either way with gambeson underneath or over top given context
It's strange that I understand exactly why the results turned out the way they did, but for the life of me I couldn't explain it in words.
I find it fascinating that even back then, you had to have the knowledge of what the opposing force was wearing so you could equip your archers with the correct bolt (or arrow). It adds more nuance to medieval warfare, which is cool.
Most awesome vid, as always.
The Lübeck and Stendal acetons are, in fact, padded with raw cotton btw :)
The needle had issues penetrating at speed, because it was tearing rather than cutting. At speed, the needle didn't do well against naked cloth, but if you were to take that needle and push it slowly through, you get through. The maille slowed the needle down so when it reached the jerkin, it was cutting instead of tearing.
Looking at your results; I, as one of the unwashed masses that has done absolutely no research on the subject, have a question/theory about the observed results of the "plate cutter" head.
Is it possible that the plate cutter head is meant to be an anti-armor weapon in the same manner as a mace or a hammer, in that it is supposed to provide blunt force trauma through the armor instead of actually penetrating it?
Not sure if you ever found an answer to this, but no, the logic of the plate cutter is a bit different. It’s very hard to pierce metal with a tip like the needle bodkin, the metal deforms and holds on very tight to what is trying to push through it. But when you cut the metal with an X shape like the edges of the plate cutter, those triangular points get pushed out of the way much easier, giving you your desired penetration.
Tod himself taught me this, actually: ua-cam.com/video/McnKrV0aDjo/v-deo.html
The experiment was awesome, but what truly impressed me was your accuracy while firing lol.
The logic conclusion would be to combine the chain mail and the fabric, since they seen to complement each other.
Also very bulky, making it more difficult to move
@@theophrastusbombastusvanho849 Seeing how People in plate can move around like its nothing I can assume its not that detrimental to wear mail over textile armor
@@sirsteam181 mail hangs and weighs you down, proper full plate supports itself somewhat and its less you have to burden alone.
@@Taos87 If your mail hangs you don't know how to wear mail. It's not wore like a bedsheet as a kid, but properly tailored and tightened.
You neber wear plate alone, there's always the gambeson/mail combo underneath, that's what makes you a walking tank.
My theory is that the fleshcutter will cut through more fabric and push more away so it goes in deeper as there is less sideways friction now. The needlebodkin is like a nail in wood, it pushes small amounts of fabric asside which will ultimately increase the friction force on the bolt as the fabric is now packed even tighter around the bolt, slowing it down.
indeed the word "Coton" comes from the arabic word "Kutn" (prefix "Al"=the).
In spanish is algodón arabic to
Jesus loves you all so much. Please repent to go to Heaven. Repent = forgive all, abandon sin and follow Jesus Christ's teachings ❤
@@darkalley8595 what the fuck do we have to repent for?
Dark Alley I pray to Zeus for your heretic teachings because I love you, brother. ❤️ making an offering to Him and the twelve gods before sun down to cease his anger.
@@thomaszhang3101 He is a monotheistic barbarian! He does not deserve Zeus all-father's blessing. He will never see Elysia.
I thought the needle would do better against the cloth, but it makes sense.
Great test, thanks.
Very interesting experiment, pity I could only mod this up once. :-) So the most effective defense is a layered or padded jack over a mail shirt, with a thin aketon underneath.Which explains why we see those into the age of cheap mass manufactured plate in the 1470s.
Barb v Needle makes sense as the needle creates more friction as it goes in, meaning the energy it has left has a harder job to do, while the barb makes better use of its initial energy by getting the cutting done straight away.
I am curious if the half-moon head would do any different
Probably simular to the flat head, but worse.
Darthplagueis13 I agree, but the armor cutter didn’t work as well as I thought it would. I just wonder if they knew something we don’t.
Glad this channel for saved. I love listening to Tod.
So.....let's say that wearing mail over (or under) a heavy fabric armour like a gambeson might be a good combination if you want to protect yoursef against the 2 most effective head-types, according to this specific test.
That's what it look like, but we should also consider if the weight is excessive and if can cause overeating.
A quanto pare si, chissà quale sarebbe il peso complessivo, però, e se soprattutto non si rischi di riscaldarsi troppo facendo attività fisica.
I was under the impression that it was normal to wear a gambeson under mail or plate rather than a thinner jack. Could be entirely wrong of course.
@@serindas Surely the excessive weight is caused by the overeating!
We'll assume you mean overheating. :)
@@stewartsherwood7769 XD my bad, i've eaten the h.
Wearing textile armor over mail and coat of plate is well documented in 13th century. Look at this translation of a 1250 norwegian book called The king's mirror (page 217-220).
archive.org/details/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft/page/216/mode/2up
This is really interesting and I can see now how layers of armour worked. If you wear a gambonson under a plate then you will be protected. from the barbed by the plate. If they use a plate cutter to get through the armour then it is stopped by the gambonson. There is likely a good bolt against any one armour but in combination you need to have a bolt that is more of a jack of all trades rather than specific to the armour. VERY interesting. Thank you.
I cant stop watching all your videos, I went from throwing knives to learning archery and now im here....... Thank you todd for the lessons
2:15 no worries you are using a word which has two letters you don't have in your alphabet
Man as a fantasy writer that like realistic battle scenes these really help
Hi, love the video. Really appreciate these experiments you're doing.
I was just wondering what was the 15th century source you mentioned for the gambeson? I was very intrigued to hear about the use of doeskin.
Ordinances of Louis XI of France, 1461-1483
archive.org/stream/armourerhiscraft00ffouuoft#page/86/mode/2up
Thanks Grymm
You did what you could with what you had. Looked pretty dam convincing to me. One thing though. If I was an archer, and the only thing stopping the enemy from getting to me was my bolts, I'd make sure the blades were very sharp. I've seen heads found in Russia and the U.K soil by metal detectorists that were still scary sharp. These were Roman and later war and hunting tips. Even the bodkin heads were still sharp along the edges. That would add to your conclusions about the bolts effectiveness against period armor. Great vid!
I also found this to be interesting
People were giving shit to chainmail and Todd just prove that it is more effective than people give it credit for. Now I can respect chainmail more
This Episode of Tod's Workshop is sponsored by RAID Shadow Viral Masks. Nothing will be as it was before. Over 56 hundred layers, and if you buy today you get two layers for free! Download now!
I came upon some research a couple years back that traced a large number of those short bodkin finds to training grounds and shooting ranges, but very few to any inventories of armies in the field, where the cutting points were much more prevalent. This suggested those bodkin point types were more like a target or field point than being some special plate armor piercing chisel as had been speculated prior. I wish I could remember where I saw the article...
thanks tod! this is a really cool vid. kind of reminds of how modern tanks uses different types of rounds for different targets.
Great experiment. Clear and methodical. Thanks
Many centuries ago, two Italian crossbowmen were arguing whether to just use hunting broadheads or use the fancy bodkins.
Keep up the good work Tod.
Consistent with my old work in the Journal of Medieval Military History. Needle bodkins are definitely the mail-beaters of the crowd, not so much great against fabric and felt that trap the tip and spring back against it.
Your quick conversion from imperial to metric is impressive.
This is great, In my fantasy book the main armor is gambeson to keep the soldiers costs down and the main range weapon is a crossbow. I watch your stuff because it is so helpful for my writing.
What I really appreciate (aside from the fun of watching bolts thrown at stuff) is the note on how these tests are not definitive proof by any means, while yt is full of "scientific test" videos. Any experimental archaeologist would hug you mr. Tod :)
Excellent film. Those were interesting results. Thanks
It might be that the flesh cutter head cuts the fabric's threads. The needle point finds gaps and only pushes the threads to the side. The flesh cutter's ability to open the fabric wider allows for the shaft to follow through.
Surprising, but it makes total sense when you think about it.
Great video!
What I like about your videos: Informative and - best of all - you are HONEST about what you do. Thank you.
Thanks and I really try to say it how I see it; otherwies I just add to the layers of confusion
I like how Tod now has to put a small disclaimer when testing armour against projectile weapons saying it's not conclusive and it's for his own enjoyment and that the picture he's basing it off likely has a better archer using the crossbow XD
Gambesons prior to the 15th century could also be stuffed instead of layered. One source for this is a regulation from the armourers guild in London, which dates to the early 14th century (I forgot which exact date). There it was said:
"That a haketon and a gambeson covered with sendale, or with cloth of silk, shall be stuffed with new cotton cloth, and with cadaz, and with old sendales, and in no other manner. And that white haketons shall be stuffed with old woven cloth, and with cotton, and made of new woven cloth within and without."
Layered gambesons would in all likelyhood be more expensive, but I'd also guess they'd be more effective. Sadly the amount of stuffing and the thickness is not specified in the source
As for the arabic 'Al-Quton' (or however that is spelled), I have a hypothesis that the arabic variants actually were made with cotton textile, which I presume would fit the arid climate of the middle east. Europe notable lacked cotton textile in the middle ages, and so they probably defaulted to other materials and constructions. Such as loose cotton filling. That being said I do not _know_ whether the arabic ones were made in that manner, so this is just some food for thought.
I think the reason the needle point tip doesn’t penetrate as far as the flesh cutter head on fabrics is because it’s a 3 sided wedge and experiences friction on 3 sides instead of 2 like the flesh cutting head.
I think gambesons/akhetons were generally minimum 12 layers of linen or cotton up to c24. That is when not just stuffed with wadding or old soft rags, but even then if done well, tightly stuffed to a good thickness, should do far better against arrows & bolts. Worth sharpening the broadhead & trying again. Great video Tod, thanks.
Reminds me of the eastern arrow types that were very broad forward facing curved blade shaped heads. Previously it was thought it was a hunting head but testing made people think they were intended for cloth. It would appear that a “bodkin” type entry is not ideal for fabric armor and “cutting” open fabric armor is better than piercing it and having the arrow force it open from that needle point. Great video and seems to mirror similar testing I have seen in more eastern archery type tests on silk etc.
I have a crossbow from Tod. Bought it a couple years ago. I love it. My son does too.
So, it seems like the needlepoint bolt would be the go-to during the 1200s. The flesh cutter does destroy gambesons, but a lot of warriors wore multiple layers. Most commonly a wool shirt, gambeson and then mail.
So, to see how the arrows would behave, you need a "softer" base for the armor layers, something like ballistic gel. Chainmail and padded were flexible, they needed to spread the kinetic force of the arrow by dragging some surface of the armor toward the center point of impact, to be useful. This force dispersion is caused by the arrow movement in depts thanks to the body of the person being "soft". In this way the kgs of force would be spent mostly by dragging the chainmail and the padded. That's why bodkin arrow were made, no force spent by dragging rings or to try to force open those, all the force, optimally, spent to pierce the padded garments.
More the chainmail can "float" (padded keeping cushioning distance from body) and move, more useful it is.
Super glad you got your channel back!
You should ask some of the other UA-camrs to put the word out that you're back.
I love these experiments and the insights they give us.
Fascinating stuff. Even with all the caveats it certainly makes you question long held assumptions.
It was demonstrated quite a few times in the past that mail "stops" cutting edge and the gambeson "stops"piercing. Together you have a fairly decent system. I am surprised that Tod didn't know that.
I like to see things for myself so that I am sure I know what I know if you know what I mean....mainly it is that the gambeson was far better than I expected
fascinating results, really show how these were probably used, not what you'd expect at first sight
Super instructive video !
The performance of the bladed head against the fabric armor was an interesting one. Considering that a modern hunting arrow can pass through some soft kevlar bulletproof vests, it wasn't totally unexpected, but had you say that it wasn't finely sharpened before shooting, I would have likely bet on a bounce off the gambeson.
After a bit of thinking, your results are quite in line with published studies of archeological finds for bolt/arrow heads. Up to the late 12th century, where mail wasn't at all common for men at arms, the ratio between bodkin types and bladed heads remained in the region of 1:1. From the mid to late 13th century onwards, where mail wasn't anymore a noblemen piece of armor, the ratio of bodkin head found to bladed head found quite abruptly rises to something around 8:1. Considering how these two heads fare against mail armor in your test, this totally makes sense.