Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Medieval Plate Armor: How Invulnerable? Why Leave It Off?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лис 2020
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/scholagladiat... - Enter promo code SCHOLAGLADIATORIA for 83% off and 3 extra months for FREE!
There is an impression that full late-medieval plate harness makes the wearer practically invulnerable. So why did some fully armored 'knights' and men-at-arms decide to reduce their level of armor sometimes?
Support & extra content on Patreon: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/matt-ea...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/
The obviously took their helmets off, because they were main characters
The strongest armor of all: Plot Armor.
Why visors rain Supreme
Never underestimate the human willingness to risk your life simply because the safe option is slightly more annoying.
If you're an adventurer, knee armor is non-negotiable.
🤦
I was once an adventurer like you, until I took an arrow to the knee! ( truth is that wasn’t the end of my adventures!)
The funny thing is that is an old expression for getting married. So what you are actually looking for is a chastity belt.
@@adambielen8996 it sounds funny, though this site disagrees. www.snopes.com/fact-check/took-arrow-knee-marriage/
I might use it anyway, as it is quite hilarious
@@nicolaiveliki1409 snope is bs
"Hopefully you recognized me inside all of this."
No, I got you mixed up with all the other UA-camrs who like to wear a sallet and have enough sabers to arm a battalion.
It's all about context.
I was not completely sure because there was no rolling pin involved.
LOLOLOL :-)
"Is it Lindybeige, Matt Easton, or Shad?"
@@thexalon Shad doesn't have any helmets lol, could be Metatron :P
Something I think too many enthusiasts forget is that the people who wore the armour, and fought in the battles were just like us. By that I mean they hated wearing things that constricted their movement, and ability to shed heat.
In Afghanistan we complained about wearing our sleeves down on our shirts, gloves, armour, tacvests, helmets, etc.. We drove around "hatches up" (heads outside the armoured vehicle) as much as we could, and even when "hatches down" we rarely closed the hatches. Even back in ye olden times, most of your time would be spent marching to battle, standing around waiting for something to happen, brief bouts of "proper action and shit", followed by kit husbandry.
EDIT: The Metatron did an interesting experiment where he wore lorica segmentata for 12 hours a day for two weeks. I think more enthusiasts should put on full kit and see how it feels. It might make people realize that wearing armour for long periods of time isn't a picnic.
I mean, just see how people today HATE to wear simple tissue masks
@@akaviri5 Well it is obvious, people want functioning armor. Those masks offer pathetic protection against both stabs and cuts!
On the point of leg armor, it would have been especially sensible for massed infantry to abandon the extra protection if they were expecting a need to advance or withdraw rapidly, or otherwise react and reposition in a hurry. Lower leg armor in particular drastically increases the energy it takes to move fast even across flat and clear terrain.
@@towakin7718 Them masks do not even protect against viruses.
@@towakin7718 But they do provide excellent protection against face recognition software so I'll keep wearing my scull mask for the next 20 years even if the pandemic stops tomorrow.
I once saw a dude at a HEMA fight thingie do what I thought was a crazy person thingie...
He was wearing mostly mail and a helmet and the other dude was in full plate.
Mail dude straight up threw his shield at the plate dude and dove for his legs. Went full bjj on the plate dude, got his back, pulled up on his helmet, grabbed the padding under the chest plate and started choking him out with his own armor.
Seemed rather effective.
pragmatic, nice ^^ did the chokee use a shield as well or did they use different weapons ?
@@borgshadow13 I think they're called hands.
Great for a duel, but not so good in melee combat, in which the plated dude's buddies would promptly stab the mailed dude.
@@blastulae Only if they're not busy fighting the mailed dude's friends, are close enough and aren't outnumbered.
"Just shoot for the legs"
Btw that's how I imagine half of mair's pike plays look like
Common misconception: People wearing a full suit of plate armor is invulnerable.
We entered a new age. Years ago the common misconception was a sword that could cut through plate armor.
If it's a katana, it can cut through a tank 😉
The only work as such if its a skinny teenager using it.
@@nicolaiveliki1409 I'm guilty of that. I live with that shame every day.
"There are ways of offending through the armor."
You left out saying unkind things about their mother.
_Your mother smells of elderberries!_
@@MrBigCookieCrumble and your father was a hamster
Ah now go aweh, or Ah shall taunt yew a secohnd timeah!!!
Fetche la vache!
Just *nih* in their general direction.
Matt, I was issued body armor as a young military policeman. Since wearing it wasn't mandatory and I was obviously impervious to all weapons because i was young, I never wore it. I suspect that such a mindset is timeless. No?
This is also the mindset behind the wheel of every loud car with a spoiler.
Some years ago, a team monitored the energy expenditure (by measuring exhaled CO2) of a trained man marching in full plate armor on a treadmill. And they found that having leg armor on or off (particularly the lower legs) makes a really significant difference. While you're walking along, all the weight on your upper body basically moves at a constant speed. You only have to use your muscles to keep the weight supported above the ground.
In contrast, your feet are constantly accelerating and decelerating to a complete stop with every step you take. In addition to supporting the weight above the ground, your leg muscles constantly have to give the weight a push forward and then pull it back to a stop.
It might make a small difference when you advance toward an enemy over a couple of hundred meters on rough ground, but should be quite significant if you had to march several miles to get to the battlefield and don't get a lot of rest before having to fight.
Wear a heavy padded jacket and run around. For short distances, you'll notice little to no difference.
Wear heavy shoes you don't normally wear. Try to run as you used to. The difference is immediately noticeable.
@@AggelosKyriou If you have a lot of mud on your boots its way more tireding
Great point. My only point of contention is that you don't necessarily need to exert force to decelerate the movement of your legs. Just to accelerate them. All the drag and the physical constraints of your skeleton and your armor can stop your legs moving forward without you exerting any force.
If you are running and need to stop it is different but in that case the total amount of weight is more important than just the weight on your legs.
When walking your leg acts as a pendulum, and its natural frequency, how fast it swings back and forth, depends on the distance from your hip joint to the centre of mass of your leg. The further the centre of mass is from the joint the lower the natural frequency, so the slower you walk.
That's likely why having armour on the lower leg was worse than the upper, it shifts the centre of mass by a greater extent.
@@jackjones2670 The lower leg moves greater distance for the same degree of swing so if more mass moves more distance that means more energy is spent.
Sir Thomas de Hanks to Lady Megan Ryan, "Even in those gaps, you've got mail."
Oh you scoundrel, good job :P
Mat : muffle muffle.
**Removes bevor**
Mat : fully understandeble words....
Point made
As a full plate reenactor i endorse this message!
Lots of 13th,14th ,15th century Italian skeletons have facial damage.
(Italians liked open faced armour)
Proof that italians can never shut up, even if their life depends on it.
Sorry, a joke, too good to leave untouched.
yeah but how can you tell an italian has face damage? with how ugly we are....
This is still true today. I've deployed to combat zones several times and been issued neck/shoulder protection. I've never used them because they interfered too much with employing my primary and secondary weapons. And it's just more hot heavy crap to wear in a desert. Was I less safe, maybe. But I sure was more comfortable
@GiRayne Currently US military issue is the improved outer tactical vest. Wikipedia has several good photos of the whole kit - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Outer_Tactical_Vest
I completely agree with Nick G. on this. There was one mission when advising Afghan army troops, who were chasing a trio of insurgents into the hills, I decided to leave all my armor behind in my vehicle, to include my helmet! I was more worried around falling down a steep rock face and breaking my neck then being hit by fire coming from over 500 meters away (there were Afghan troops well ahead of me engaging the insurgents with fire). I really probably should have continued to wear my helmet, in retrospect.
There was research at the University of Leeds specific to the point that Matt is making here. royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.0816 Weight on the legs is more physiologically taxing than weight on the torso, as is any weight carried in the hands. A belt is an essential piece of kit as it puts weight in an easier place to carry it. There is much wisdom in how things are done. Great video as always Matt!
Shakespeare described Richard III "...like a rich armour worn in heat of day that scalds with safety." The trade-offs were well known in the day.
I do 17th century re-enactment. I have carried a pike for over 30 years. Back and breast does provide some protection but the weight and heat problems in close formations can really knacker you. In reality, with musketry and cavalty providing most of the killing power I can see why armour fell out of use.
Having suffered with minimal civil war armours my respect for the earlier wearers of heavier full and half harness is immense.
On campaign, you might be fighting only two or three hours, much of it won't be actively avoiding getting hit by an enemy's swings. But you'd be marching for weeks or months.
I think in addition to the points Matt brought up; the issue when looking at armour is that people tend to look at things in a vacuum. “Oh there’s a gap. Oh your face is a bit unprotected. Oh you’re not wearing enough leg armour.” .
Your opponent is a fighting man, he’s going to move and defend himself and attack you he’s not just standing there while you carefully and surgically try to target his one “chink in his armour”. Maybe you have less armour and are more maneuverable but a man encased in armour is MUCH harder to kill than a guy wearing say a gambeson and a kettle hat. He might be in formation, on horseback, etc. So many things to take into account.
And EVERY kit is going to have weak spots, it’s just how it is but taking advantage of those weak spots is the hard part. You always hear people saying “Well I would just wrestle them down and open their visor and stab them with a rondel dagger!” Uh-huh... much easier said than done, your opponent is trying to do the same to you.
Sadly, it doesn't matter, all the ignorant people who have little to no interest about history
And everyone else that is interested in history
Already knows more what is more realistic and historical
Yes, you could stab someone through a tiny gap with a blade.
But you'd have to do it while that guy is swinging his giant sword at your head, arms, legs, and everything.
@@Yora21 Yes and its not easy to do that is what he is saying.
@@steyn1775 You don't even have to know history, just common sense. It's the equivalent of saying that a tank is no bother because I'd just grab C4 and sneak up behind it, blow off it's tracks and the back of the tank or "I'd just climb on top of it, open the hatch and drop a grenade in, it's not a big deal"
@@Jhakaro many people these days don't have common sense anymore...
I know a lot of the Knights of St John did not wear leg armor during the siege of Malta, as they were fighting from battlements and so their legs were not exposed and it saved weight, giving them more maneuverability and stamina.
Another factor I try to mention in my Roman programs (and for much of the Roman period, hardly any armor for legs & arms, similarly with the 15th century), is the added weight and burden of having to carry all of that extra armor on campaign. I often state that the (Legion) is not going to stop marching and wait for you to fix a broken leg/arm armor or if a piece fell off or if it was pinching. While some armies later in the 15th cen. did have wagons and baggage trains, much like the Romans (and ironically who they were 'studying" in the 15th cen.) there wasn't always space for all of your extra stuff if you couldn't carry it yourself, why bother. especially as a common foot soldier. Another factor is your arms and legs are not your vital organs, your head & torso are, and that's where we always see the 'most' amount of armor worn throughout history. Yeah getting a slash on the arm or leg is bad news, but hardly 'fatal', and you need as much flexibility in your limbs and joints as possible. You opponent is most likely trying to aim for your vitals. Slashing an arm or leg for dramatic effect is really more for the movies or stage. One last factor I'd like to mention is Fashion. When we see 'full' head-to-toe armors depicted, it's almost always that of the higher classes and 'knightly' classes, who are also more likely to be on horseback, and in the 'back' lines giving orders or moving formations. Because they can afford the [fancier] armors as part of their status, and also on horse, it's part of their job to look fancier but also can maneuver/retreat on the field faster while in horse. That said, we all know what happened to Charles the Bold when he was finally taken down, so sometimes even your 'worn wealth' can't always save you from being hacked to pieces.
"Hello, this is your armpit. You got mail"
Lmao "MAILE
CHECK"
Battle of Shrewsbury, 1403. Harry Hotspur KIA, probably by an arrow to the face after opening his visor for a better look around. Sixteen year-old Hal, Prince of Wales, Henry V to be, survived being shot in the face while leading a contingent of his dad's men at arms with his visor up. His arrowheadectomy was a great feat of 15th century surgery.
Hot summer of 1410. Battle of Grunwald. Teutonic Knights had to stand in the scorching sun for several hours waiting for Polish-Lithuanian attack. We know what happened later.
The sheer heat of the stuff is often overlooked. I have a mostly complete viking age kit but can't ever wear it on account of not wanting to die of heat stroke. And maille isn't as hot as plate, especially short hauberks.
This debate continues today. Kevlar, helmet, ceramic plate armor for modern western soldiers greatly contribute to ankle, knee, hip, neck, and other musculoskeletal injuries. Actually, weight related injuries are one of the most common causes of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, fatigue itself can probably contribute to lack of alertness, injuries, etc., that can really get you killed in a firefight. The trade off of some armor, which doesn't make you invulnerable anyway, so that you can have more energy and alertness, is a no brainer.
It's just for appearances. We want to say we are giving our soldiers the best kit! No matter that it causes problems for the soldiers. No one feels bad for trying, even if it makes things worse. But for some reason, everyone feels bad for not doing anything, even if that means they didn't do the thing that made things worse. So people would rather make things worse than not do anything. :D
Not just today. The contextual balance will be relevant as long as there is war. The same principle of spectrums of competing factors applies to all apparel and tools.
Good point. A retired cop told me he’s got back and hip issues from his duty belt. Cops these days have so much more stuff to carry on their persons these days.
Fatigue can't be underestimated. Try wearing a modern plate carrier plus all your normal gear. It wasn't unusual to go on patrol with close to 100 lbs of gear. Fatigue just wore you down and lead a lot of people to pulling their back or side plates.
There was an episode of the Jocko podcast where I think Leif Babin was saying even the SEALs were exhausted after patrols for the first few weeks in Iraq while they adjusted to wearing kit in the heat.
Yup and knights were just 20 something soldiers when it comes down to it often
Rich ones with a superiority complex aswell
@@mondaysinsanity8193 "your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries"
Anything extra vastly increases fatigue during actual intense activity as well.
Just compare swimming in swimsuit vs swimming in normal clothing, or fighting three 2 minute rounds in the ring in shorts & vest vs he same in hiking gear with an all weather coat....
the thumbnail is a cry for help, Surfshark has him hostage
Like RIA with gun jesus
He is already Property of SuperDry.
@@brancaleone8895 hail gun Jesus, may he spread forever the word of shooting, and punish the heretics that subvert his words
Kinder masters than Raid i'm sure
He's safe inside the shark from Raid.
Indeed modern people seems to be heavily interested into "gapless armor" without considering the massive pain in the butt of having such amount of metal on it.
Context, environment and personal preference play a role as well
Also worth remembering knights are mostly early 20s macho types...just like the modern military.
Guess who hates wearing side plates, helmets, and kevlar padding
Yeahhh
There's a reason why modern soldier wear only torso and head protection.
@@mondaysinsanity8193 I heard they sometimes even forgo the helmet because it was heavy and limited their hearing (though knowing guns, that might not be such a good idea).
Bulletproof armour is not enough. We need waterproof armour
@Luca Nic, Im sorry, but are you the guy from Gumbai military history blog?
Ah the greatest threat to knight. The "puny" dagger...the ultimate anti-armor weapon.
Edit:
A question: How often was armor looted from the battlefield?
Indeed!
We are living in era of industrial convenience. Metallurgy then and now are totally different. Metal has way higher price in the old days due to the difficulties to produce & process. We can guess with high confidence after battle there might be salvage teams started to work.
Heck, even modern days we still salvage sunk battle ships or destroyed tanks for scraps.
@La Nausée Remember that battlefields are awful places with many men wounded and dying slowly. If you were injured, you prayed you could walk away, or that your friends would come looking for you and take you to the surgeons (for whatever level of good that might do...). If your wounds were mortal, you prayed for someone to give you the coup de grace and end your suffering. If you were wounded or incapacitated on a field the enemy won, your best outcome was capture ransom. Resolving the various possibilities meant soldiers and camp followers combing the battlefield looking for fallen or wounded friends, ransomable enemies, and anything of value. Depending on the particular combatants and war, it could be really ugly being caught by the other side's camp followers...
@@chengkuoklee5734 Metal had a huge labor cost in refinging and forging. Fuel was the big labor and cost driver since a lot of high quality charcoal would go into smelting the metal in the first place and then forging itnot only required a lot of charcoal but a lot of highly skilled smith work. Recycling metal saved you the smelting effort.
As for modern salvaging of tanks and ships tends to have a dramatically different set of focuses. Historical tank hulls (
@La Nausée In some armies they had rules on how the loot is split and they had secretarties keeping track and recording it.
I think the ottomans did this. Or it could have been the seljuk turks. Not sure about others.
When you look at the number of "great men" who fell in battle during the 15th century, who must have been wearing something close to full plate armour, it's clear that there were vulnerabilities. In some cases we can say with confidence they were done in by polearms (Richard III, Charles the Bold). Wladyslaw III was also probably killed with a large axe or halberd. The Duke of Clarence at Baugé is thought to have been killed with a mace. In each case it seems they were unhorsed then finished off on the ground.
There is of course also always the risk of being knocked to the ground and unable to get up (because you get trampled, etc.) and suffocating in mud or drowning in a puddle. That is, I think, one of the versions of the death of the Duke of York at Agincourt.
I have always been puzzled by the story of Warwick at Barnet, who supposedly was unhorsed and then found his armour so heavy he couldn't get up again. That seems unlikely on its face (albeit matched Victorian stereotypes of knightly armour). If he fell off into a group of enemies, however, who prevented him from getting up and finished him on the ground, that would make sense, although the story is usually told as his being found on the ground rather than dragged off his horse. Someone suggested to me a couple of years ago that perhaps he was in fact badly injured in the fall (back fracture or the like) and therefore couldn't get up, leaving him helpless, but that to an observer it wouldn't have been obvious. That idea seems to make sense of the story, although I don't know what evidence there is.
There is also a chance him being a VIP his armor got "supercharged" for safety and actually was too heavy to move in. Also depending on stickiness of the mud that might have contributed as well.
Well, if you see how people often injure their joints, back and head in a fall let allone standing falling of a horse an injury preventing him getting up makes allot of sense
@@franciscusvdlouw5436 Especially if the armor you fall in were unusually heavy and not intended to walk around in ...
Frankly, I imagine a lot of the time it was also just a case of the conditions not really favoring full armor. If you have to fight on a particularly hot day in the middle of the summer, the heat and fatigue may end up as dangerous as the enemy. The risk of maybe getting stabbed in the face if you get really unlucky doesn't seem quite as bad as the risk of passing out mid-battle and getting trampled to death.
If you've ever worked in tree cutting gear (similar in thickness, weight and warmth as a thick gambeson) on a hot day you'll know just how much it takes out of you. After a while the risk of your legs getting overly familiar with a chainsaw is outweighed by the more pressing likelihood that you'll pass out from exhaustion or make other risky mistakes because you're dehydrated and feeling faint
@@DjDolHaus86 Wow, and you definitely didn't want to drink more water than you had to back then!
Obviously not medieval, but as with many things in the west we can also look on this topic to the Romans. They could wear more armor in more parts of the body (see gladiator armor), but they chose not to as a professional army because of the way they waged war (march every day, carry stuff every day, build and dismantle a fortified camp every day even during battle so the fighting troops have a safe heave to retreat). If a tactic was good enough for those lads who really knew what they were doing, maybe people shouldn't dismiss it so hastily.
I think it was in the Italian wars where pikemen were notorious for not only simply abandoning most of their issued armour save the helmet but also for shortening their pikes by 2-3 feet to make looting easier. Did it lead to awkward and deadly encounters with troops who still had full lenght pikes and full kit? Yes. Did they keep doing it until their commanders started to severely punish the practice? Also yes.
How does a shorter pike make it easier to loot? Use inside buildings? Holding it while bending down to loot?
@@googiegress7459 A 3.5 meter pike is a lot lighter, handier and easier to carry than a 5 meter pike I presume. Also the less equipment you got to carry the more loot you get to carry I guess. The Scots were notorious to do the same so it must have been good for something...
The best armor for a noble is a pack of very large men sworn to protecting you. =)
I just remembered an action movie trope: The off-duty cop/spy/whatever getting shot in the chest, and falling down, only to pull open his shirt, and reveal the "Bulletproof" vest he was wearing, off duty. Never mind the fact that there's no armor of invulnerability. They could probably make something close, but you wouldn't be able to Move in it. (Even then, there are anti-tank weapons.) Let alone pick up a pack of smokes from the gas station, if they weren't a little nervous because you showed up in your suit of invulnerability. People don't walk around wearing armor 24/7 even today. When we have much better, and more comfortable armor. Because you don't need armor 24/7. Nobody does, neither did Knights back in the day. Honestly, it's not worth the hassle, they didn't ride horses around the palace in full barding, either. In fact, if they were to appear in Court, they'd dress for court, not carrying a lance couched under their arm, because that would be pretty gauche, appearing before the King/Queen.
I wish you could show the panels of the treatise you were talking about while you explained it. Great vid ether way!
My peasant army is equipped with lassos daggers and clubs. Your move, knights!
the weakness of peasant armies is their low protection, potentially low moral and first and formost their poor logisics.
So here is the knights move: chill in save walled areas. This will give the peasants the possibility to unite their forces. & that is what you want, have them all in one spot.
Then assemble your forces inside the next bigger city.
Let the peasants march on the city.
Also let them know that peasants who return to their homes peacefully will not be punished ( ofc you will prosecute them all, but if they think they are save to go home, they will not fight with the bravery of a doomed man)
After the march they are low on provisions and therefor need to fight.
then position your army infront of the city on a preverably flat agricultural area,
Don't wait for the peasants to dig themselfes in if they arrive at the place.
as soon as they have formed something similar to a battle formation, give them 3 volleys of arrows.
That should lighten their ranks & lower their moral.
As you said you peasants have only clubs and daggers, without a wall of speers and without range weapons they will not withstand the next move:
Frontal heavy shock charge with full plated lance riders.
You penetrate their ranks inflict substantial losses within the first few seconds of contact.
If they aren't routing, retreat before melee combat starts.
repeat the arrows followed by an other lance charge.
repeat this as often as necessary untill they start running away..
As soon as they start to run pursue them, and stab / slash them in the backs.
this should work perfectly 9/10
unless the peasant uprising is in a mountainous area.
If they are in the mountains, just let them be, nobody needs the alpine areas anyway.
beat them if they come out of the mountains.
I dismount most of my knights and make them use their long lances as pikes. Being professional warriors they could de deployed pretty thin and still be effective, so I can match the frontage of your peasants and not be outflanked. I kept the best drilled ones mounted, circled around your peasant army and hit you from the rear. Your undrilled and inexperienced peasants panicked and rout. My knights remounted and pursued and massacred them.
My army is not all knights; the cavalry stand off in small groups of about 10 at the flanks to intercept if anyone moves forward, the shield wall and pikes at the center just in front of the slingers, who hurl a riverbed worth of stones at the unarmored peasants. When the peasants break, the cavalry knots run them down and take out any band smaller than 6 or so with their lances.
The most invulnerable armor you can get is a solid steel airtight man sized box. You are nigh unkillable then... Except asphyxiation of course.
Or the brazen bull treatment...
... And you're also completely useless
Put wheels or tracks on it.
I would like to point that the topic is applicable not about a certain time-frame, but for the choice for heavy protection in any era, from the ancient times until modern era.
Heavy armor is the categorization the heaviest armors and most protective armor available for the specific time, yet is usually the most cumbersome to wear, especially for prolonged period of time.
Modern armor and helmets used by soldiers are providing good protection against projectiles, yet the weight and the constriction of movement is much bigger then not wearing any armor.
Soldiers wearing whole day get used to it and at some point it feels like a heavy (think about the baggy winter coats) cloths, but the moment you put it off, you feel you can basically fly by not being pressured by it's weight. That's at least my experience.
I bet that in the ancient times, it was the same, but armies were not as mobile as now and moving on foot - wearing armor will wear you down little by little, while not wearing it would expose you armor-less in case of ambush etc. It's always about a compromise when we're talking about weapons and armors.
Seems like the tradeoff for unarmored hands didn't work out in 12:30
the guy in the picture looks too ok with his hand being choped off
i love medieval ilustrations
When fighting I envied those reenactors that had kettle or nasal helmets as in my great helm I could see very little and on warm days would overheat massively. If health and safety would have allowed I'd have dumped that helm in a heartbeat! And your pauldrons can be as big as you want and not interfere....while you empty your bolt gun into worldeaters!
Ha! I Just glued on a 40k space marine pauldron on like 5 minutes ago.
In the art where the 3 guys with axes are bringing a mounted knight down it’s interesting to see 2 of them have turned axes around to use as blunt weapons as they knew it would be more effective than the sharp side
The point about leg armor was very interesting! Thank you for talking about this, I have always been confused when seeing that in manuscript images.
I think when looking at the effecitvness of armour is entirely in context of the situation. The rondal seems great but in a pitch battle would you drop your current weapon, whip out your rondal on the chance of hitting a strap? Even with the armoured soldiers back to you, if they are in the middle of melee it would take someone incredibly skilled or picking the right movment to strike. And while they are waiting to strike someone else jobs you from behind with a poleaxe.
Perhaps their mate was shouting at them:
"Sir Robert!"
"What?"
"SIR ROBERT!"
*takes bever off and opens visor* "What is it Sir Rodeney."
"I think they're about to fire arrows at us!"
Look at modern soldiers, the only protection they tend to have is ballistic panels for their chest and a helmet which isn't primarily designed to resist bullets, their helmets are made to protect against the million other risks their heads face, like shrapnel, bumping into things, being knocked around and so on. Armor is generally made to provide no more than the exact required protection for the job at hand, breastplates and ballistic panels alike are intended to save lives and aren't really replicable. Wounds to extremities though? Your arm is broken by a bill and you live to fight another day, or you get shot in the arm. In either case, as a rank and file soldier the stuff protecting your chest and head wasn't there to protect your arms because that would offer too little return on investment, be it money or mobility or any other metric.
Excellent selection of illustrations!
1:25 *"But before I go on, I'm gonna remove some of this..."* Wait what!? *"...And the first piece to come off..."* OH NO!!
Not wearing armour on the bottom half makes it easier to release your digestive products, because if you had the armour on you most likely are going to have to deal with it later. If your leg where free you had a chance of having time to do the dity things without getting too much dirty on your own.
Opening was like a real life" sock puppet? ... ...time for my morning bowl XD
The painting at 18:39 gave me traumatic flash backs to kingdom come deliverance
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! I've been staring at old drawings for ages utterly confused why they're wearing weird combos.
See also: leveling up in World of Warcraft
Medieval art also has knights fighting snails, hares and tortoises so...
As a former soldier. life is hard enough and the gear is heavy enough with out helmet and armor. so if you don´t have have it on. this minute. you don´t have it.
Today, American infantry and special operators are notorious for trying to shed the body armor they're supposed to wear.
Special forces are very confident in their tactical skills they probably think to be able to take out the enemy before they can return fire.
@@arx3516 They also operate in small units rather than large formations. Speed is life.
It wasn't so much a question of why leave it off, but why put it on? It took the better part of an hour, with help (Most of the buckles, and ties aren't where you can reach them with both hands) to put it all on. Keeping in mind that it wasn't just plate armor. That's the part you can see, but there's typically maille, and gambeson under it, to protect you from your own armor plates. That's why it took so long to put it on with help, it wasn't one thing. It was several layers of many things. Think about it like a business suit. Unless you wear it to work every day, you don't wear it 24/7, and you typically loosen your tie/collar as needed? All right, now pad that out to moving blanket thickness, add 20 lbs of chainmail, and 30 lbs of plates to that, then go about your daily business. You might as well ask why a hockey goaltender ever takes off his pads, rather than drive around town dressed for the crease, and that's with modern design, and materials, at a fraction of the weight. Or EOD (Bomb Disposal) or a linebacker, or Riot Control. Why would the riot squad ever take off full riot gear, just in case a riot broke out? Because it's heavy, hot, and uncomfortable. Not to mention the fact that a riot doesn't break out in your city every day. Hell, cheerleaders don't wear their uniforms 24/7.
Yet again, fantastic insight, easily digested...you make a great teacher brother! With the state of the garbage produced on tv, youtube videos are my go-to couch potato entertainment now...and your vids are ALWAYS among my very first choices!
"Wear your bevoir" is very appropriate for our current global situation
Thou shalt be equipped with a bevoir and gauntlets, and thou shalt maintain a polearm's lenght of distance with thy companions
i would prefer wearing a Brodie helmet, and a full ww2 British uniform, if i could buy them
@ElijahMFearon And shave your facial hair to make a close fit.
In that Swedish book of combat and arms at 3:55, the show producers that examined it, shewed an unarmoured man with a big sword, grabbing the blunt bits of the blade and using the pommel (or pummel) to brain the knight with.
And they gave a real life demonstration. One good strike to the helmet with the pommel, made the knight inside the helmet as stunned as a terd in a toilet bowl. And it was only a demonstration of combat, he was knocking him on the nut, which is totally different to actively trying to kill him, by swinging the pomell as hard and as fast as he possibly can.
So the old statement of "Being pummelled or pomelled to death" is an absolutely true fact.
One of the advantages of wearing full armor without putting the helmet on in the battlefield, is that you know the cameras are most likely on you and that you are playing the a non-minor character role in the series.
This guy protagonizes
"If 3 blows with the pole-axe do not incapacitate your foe; run away."
Swarms seem to immensely effective against even the highest of tech.
The Swiss were among the first to discard most of the armour, as a contemporary historician wrote generally they wore only an helmet and a simple cuirass. They priviliged agility and fast movement over protection, plus they couldn't afford the high cost of full armour.
Plus with the creation of big, standing armies, development of black powder weapons, full armour became obsolete and too costly to equip an entire army.
Anyone who has worn modern body armour can understand the level of discomfort that comes with wearing armour. I wish there were a way of explaining that to players who want their character to spend all their time in armour.
thank you. loads of information delivered fast, really interesting, nice going.
Henry's Armours deserve a stand alone episode. Aswell the armorer's he imported.
The guy on the right at 19.57 looks like he's carrying something very close to a Japanese Naginata with that round handguard !
i know this is from a game but on the topic of set ups - there is a dlc for mount and blade called viking conquest , there is a stamina bar in there which is affected by the weight of weapons and armor , so i generaly go for a helmet , light or medium body armor and some strong shoes , cause 90% of hits in combat are either ranged weapon to the legs flying under the shield or a swing to the head , the body is obviously behind the shield
Matt, if you put some black cloth and pair of red LEDs behind the vision slot of the visor on your sallet, it would make for a great Halloween costume with your bevor on. Add a black cloak and maybe a few other sorts of add ons and you could go as a Death Knight.
In general, I wonder if it would be better to:
a) wear as much armor as possible while still maintaining some meaneuverability
or b) wear only enough armor to protect the vitals, placing an emphasis on maneuverability.
I'm sure it depends on the situation, but I'm wondering which would be a better philosophy for a "general/standard issue" setup. I'd be inclined to say that "b" would be better because it is cheaper for a large military force, and this does seem to be the modern approach to armor with plate carriers replacing the cumbersome protective vests of the early War on Terror.
b) worked for the romans. Though generally, it is more like c) make sure you're protected enough for what your unit is expected to face, everything depends on situation. The real win though, comes from d) have generals and leaders know wtf they're doing, all day down from logistics (which might include what armor to give to wath troops), placement, and all the other things. Good gear helps, but no amount of gear protects troops from bad strategies.
In 15th century Japan many Samurai hated wearing haidate (the thigh protectors) for the exact same reason.
Another very interesting video Dr.Easton, love learning about the perticulars of the different pieces of armour. Is there a specific or even some multiple sources of art painting 🎨 drawings , tapestries etc... That one could look at armoured combatants , mid-eval life in general? Stay safe and God bless 🇺🇸☠️🇺🇸🇬🇧🇨🇦🤺💂!!!
Many scholars say that archaeological and literary sources suggest that the ancient Greek panoply (armor kit) got lighter and lighter over time, though there's some disagreement over the extent/evidence. Just an interesting thought that this video reminded me of.
No you can't defeat me I'm wearing full plate
Poleaxe to the head go:brrrrr
I am new to this channel. Your impressive sword wall is a thing of beauty. Definite subscribe and hitting the bell for all alerts. I had already hit the thumbs up a bit ago.
Thanks and welcome
That thumbnail though, phasing out of reality.
I was a little surprised you didn’t mention my one of my favorite bits of context to this, perhaps because you’ve mentioned it before. But, as a soldier (man at arms or conscripted) most of your time wasn’t spent on the battle field it was spent on the march! And if you had to carry your own gear or had only one horse your going to choose your arms and armor like a solo backpacker. Every ounce of steal is another ounce of suck! Ive done parades walking in full armor and its the worst!
As a side note I find it odd that we don’t see more armored punching and kicking in the treatises. I know medieval Europe tends to be pretty light on pugilism despite that once incased in steel your fist, elbows, knees, and even head become pretty powerful weapons against unarmored opponents. I wonder why that is?
probably because it would pretty much useless against someone else in armor and if "you" are unarmored punching some who is armored is a good way to break your hand
Even during combat only a few soldiers ever died or even were injured. WW1 is likely the bloodiest conflict in history and 14% of troops that saw combat have been killed. This might seem like very little but compared to virtually any other war, that's a staggering amount.
Individuals with heavy armor had people to carry it for them. There are accounts of nights being carried in sedan chairs, so I guarantee they weren’t lugging around armor.
1:00 rare picture of a reenactor in his new kit after realising he can't eat it.
Remembering all of this really becomes critical for Agincourt, where there is a lot of debate over longbow vs. harness.
Hi Matt, a question, I am not sure if you made a video about this yet... What are your thoughts on influence the gunpowder had on medieval arms and armor? Do you think late 15th arms and armor would look significantly different had gunpowder not been around (and in what and why?), or do you think it was not prominent enough in its use yet? I think it would be in general interesting to also look into how actually gunpowder shaped the evolution of armor and other weaponry on the battlefield.
Hey Matt, got a quick question, hope you can answer.
Can people wearing a helmet with a bevor or gorget (mail/gambeson coif underneath included) *turn their head around* normally or would their neck's range of movement become severely restricted? If so which type? Flexion? Extension? Rotation?
I'm curious if they'd suffer from batman neck syndrom.
Thumbs up for the 40K reference.
There often trade off in the Armor by people that can get more an better armors, it's not hard to find cases of full plate armor used with open face helmets, unenclosed legs an arms an mail sabatons.
One thing that I would like to mention is that, while it may look nearly impossible, making a pinpoint thrust into a gap in armor is very doable, especially if you have trained for accuracy in the thrust.
It is true that you can train to improve at that, but each and every opponent will have different armour. So the 'gaps' are not the same on each person and will be protected in different ways (there is often chainmail underneath those 'gaps'). Not to mention that trying to be that accurate when the person in that armour is trying to destroy you with their weapons, well it's not that easy. It's a bit easier with short weapons like daggers during grappling, much harder with longer weapons at longer range.
Definitely, a dagger is your best friend in harnischfecten. I simply wish to highlight that fighting against someone in armor is difficult, but not impossible.
But you need to put mail busting power behind that thrust, it can't be done with a single handed trust.
A lot of techniques are about getting body weight an leverage behind the thrust.
See
watch?v=e-TViIA1DBk
I bet heatstroke was an issue in full harness.
I suppose instead of mail or full plate you can use a thicker Gambeson underneath a plate Cuirass ( and just the Cuirass).
This would certainly be less weight and heat. You definitely gain mobility .
Everyone, from the light troops like akinj, stradiots to knights and sipahis carried maces/war hammers to deal with armor in melee. John Smythe reckoned a Stradiot was able to take on a Gendarme should he get past the charge. Being unencumbered and riding a more nimble horse means he's much more likely to land the first hit with his mace. Just like a Hussar could land a disabling cut on a Cuirassier's arm in a swirling melee.
As far as not using armor on your legs in formation. Since you process and respond to tactile sensory input faster then visual, I wonder if this was also to help maintain awareness of the formation around you without taking your eyes off the opposing formation. Such as feeling the leg movements of your neighbor in the formation and mirroring that movement yourself. Kind of like birds in a flock.
The thumbnail is so good
As some one who has wore Flack armor in a jungle sometimes it feels better to not wear it. I am not comparing this to plate armor. I am pointing out there are conditions armor of any kind sucks to be in.
I've seen arguments online that support that wearing plate armor or using a shield is the ultimate arbiter of hand combat, which, like you say, is untrue. When I was in the USAF I learned that B-52s were shot down over Hanoi with blind, unaimed SA-2 shots and an F-117 was brought down by luck over the former Yugoslavia. How is the vision with such a helmet? I've read that wearing a bevor made downward vision problematic over rough terrain such as at Tewkesbury. I've read that forensic evidence shows that Richard III and perhaps James IV had head fatal head injuries which would suggest that they died without a helmet as did many fleeing soldiers at Towton. Also, I've read that Richard III and James IV, who could afford the best armor, were likely killed by foot soldiers. One other thing that I've seen in documentaries was heat exhaustion with armor.
Helmet, cuirass, gauntlets, and vambraces or sabatons should be donned for most engagements. With either textile or flexible armour covering the more crucial areas not covered by plate.
There aren't always gaps in the armor. Some suits of foot combat armor were made with literally no gaps or open slits. The vision openings in the helmet was a series of small holes rather than an open slit. And there were absolutely no gaps or openings in the joints because they were made with telescoping steel rings with precise fitment. Some of the better made suits of full coverage armor were claimed (I can't say it is absolutely true) that not even a sewing needle could be forced through the gaps.
Pictures here: www.quora.com/Were-there-any-suits-of-armor-in-ancient-history-that-had-no-gaps
That isn't to say it was impossible to kill people in this armor, or that it was impossible to somehow wedge a dagger under a plate and work it into the flesh. But it made it incredibly difficult.
Can you give me the source for the bascinet-armet at 5:54 I can't find the origin of this illustration, cheers!
Does anybody have a source for the image on the left at 10:25?
Arming only the upper body isn't so bad for single combat or skirmishing. It's only "insane" if you're dueling someone in full armor & you have the option to wear full armor yourself. Wearing a shirt of mail or brigandine plus a light helmet appears to have been pretty common for street fighting as well as for archers & the like. For example, the folks who attacked Sir Kenelm Digby wore head & torso protection but Digby didn't mention anything else. Armoring the legs is a huge pain for people expecting to walk or run for extended periods. Even heavy infantry like pikers usually only had armor down to the knee. Having the upper body protected is still a big advantage in a one-on-one fight. Defending the legs isn't too hard, especially when you don't have to worry as much about defending the upper body.
Could you put a link to (or identify) the painting of the unarmored soldiers attacking the mounted and armoured knight at 5'08"? Thanks.
Unbiased (to a large extent) videos I like 🙏🙏
One important thing to consider with armor is that its purpose is to _buy you time._ The protection it provides is meant to give you an ability to get into the position where your own attack has better effect on your opponent than what their attack will do to you.
No matter how extensive your armor scheme will be, if you simply stand there doing nothing, your opponent will have the time to try a way to get around or through that armor.
Two questions Matt ( or anyone whom knows):
Where there fingered gauntlets that only armored the thumb and index finger?
Is there evidence that men at arms ever wore bevors with open face helmets?
Every time I see someone fingering a blade, I shudder. My formal weapons training is in Escrima and Kobudō (stick, staff and sai) and it is common to focus on 'de-fanging the cobra' by striking the weapon hand. Most hits are on the thumb, followed by the index finger, and then the knuckles. A fingered gauntlet that had the minor fingers removed would still give 80 percent of the protection but allow for the fine motor control that is needed for Escrima as so much of the control is with minor fingers. As Escrima is very much influenced by HEMA style arts, it seems to me that this would have been also a target there.
As for the bevor with an open face helmet, watching the long bow vs armor test that Tod did last year, it seems that the bevor would take care of most of the deflections off the chest plate whilst the open face helmet would give a much better situational awareness. Even with an open face helmet, with the chin tucked, an arrow would still have a very small target to hit. To be clear, the context I am thinking of here is of armored foot or light cavalry; I understand the context of why heavy cavalry would want a full helmet.
Hi Matt, do you know the source for the picture on the right at 10:26?
In the firearms/ military industry we see things similar. Modern body armor basically covers the front and back of the upper chest and helmets are becoming more high cut. Being able to shoulder your rifle without your armor making it a problem, be more mobile and having more speed in movement during a gunfight is absolutely huge
Mitten gauntlets and ridning: I have never used gauntlets when riding. But I have done it with mittens. As long as you do not try to fancy things it can be done. But it is way better with fingered gloves - you get better controll and has an eaiser time operating the reins. I imgagine that in a combat situation, this is enhanced by a huge margin.
Does anyone have the full sized image of the one shown at 09:50?