Why Knight's Armor Developed Only In Europe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лют 2024
- Become a Call of History member: / @call_of_history
Support us on Patreon:
/ call_of_history
In 476 AD, Rome fell. A barbarian named Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, and established his own barbarian kingdom in Italy. Thus ended the era of antiquity. For the next 300 years, Europe plunged into darkness. But soon, on the battlefields where legionaries once dominated, a new class of warriors emerged - the knights. Mounted warriors whose main symbol became the full plate armor. But did knights really wear such armor for most of history? It might surprise some of you, but full plate armor appeared in Europe even after the advent of the first firearms! For example, in the Battle of Crécy, which occurred in the early stages of the Hundred Years' War, cannons were already in use, but none of the knights wore full plate armor. So, what kind of armor should really be associated with knights? Why did full plate armor only emerge in Europe? And why didn't even the Romans, who had the means, armor their legionaries in plate?
Sources: pastebin.com/raw/g8f5Qyum
There's a disturbing lack of gambesons, in this video.
There is also a disturbing lack of riveted mail. The examples shown were butted mail, which is cosplay armor, not real armor. And gambeson armor was incredibly effective, way more effective than games seem to imply (I'm looking at you, DnD!)
@@stevenhanly4412for blunts? Yes but against slicing and stinging it was horrible
@@tomatobread1480Gambesons can stop some shots from a longbow even
@@tomatobread1480 Gambesons are extremely effective against slashing attacks, it's a missconception that they are not.
Gambeson are made of various linen threads and wool that crosses each others, they are extremely hard to cut actually. if your blade is not razor sharp you can forget cutting through a gambeson. there are many studies that shows that textile armor are way better to prevent cuts than most people think.
Linen is tough to cut, wool is tough to cut, don't think it's like cotton or anything like that.
You can guess also why spears are a thing against these kinds of armor.
Feodal fighting is quite complex and missunderstood and all I can tel you is to check the work of Professor Gilles Martinez or Nathanaël Dos Reis about it.
@@doddelastomerie8550 Its weaker than plate against bludgeoning arguably, but plate kinda makes bludgeoning push into you
But yes, fabrics and linen armor are very good against cuts and slashes
Mail was NOT for just defending against slashes and cuts. But was also incredible in terms of stab protection.
Yep. Anything wider than a needle would not get past the mail unless pressured with substantial force.
@@michaelpettersson4919 Exactly.
I have always thought the chain would enlarge and fall apart as soon as it touches the tip of the trusty weapon
@@ardaarsen Actual maille was riveted and hardened. Only 'costume' butted armor would split without tremendous force.
mail does not provide any great protection against stabbig tho.. wher´d ou hget your info - some videogame probably :D theres reason why speart was king until late medieval period and why knights at crecy was like pin cushions in their mostly mail coats of arm.
This video has a lot of inaccurte information
yeap.
The moment i heard his voice i knew it will be just am averadge generic info dump on knights and will deliver noting of substance.
nothing about ottoman and Persian armoured knights
@@turnipsociety706It is about Europe, but then again, he implies that the European knights were more unique than they were.
@@turnipsociety706 They were implied as listed/considered as "the East". It does irk me when commentary does this (lobbing Middle East or even Russia with East/Asia) but I understand there's a little debate about the semantics... still.
It would help people reading comments if you listed what was wrong.
It's true the video's script should've included disclaimers about the details and specifics, indicating the generalities and vast omissions. It could've also clarified the terms and intentions. Most people tend to take educational topics as neat, scientific terms and categories like they're in grade school.
That said, for a general introduction to the uninformed 3/4ths of the way it's fine.
Compare to what the History Channel or most teachers were spewing out 10-20 years ago, this is a scientific article.
.
The conclusion of the video was off and it didn't really explain why only Europe developed Late Medieval / Renaissance full plate compared to the rest of the world. The mighty impact of a braced lance via stirrup and the rest generally wouldn't compare to a warbow.
And I would disagree with the video's notion that the Romans simply didn't care and didn't need better armor; that doesn't make any sense. The Romans had incredible sense of industry which reduces development costs and of course the greatest and richest nobles would want the best-of-the-best that was possible. If full plate armor was possible, even to only a few hundred in the aristocracy, they would've made it in the same way we have ridiculously expensive and fast luxury sports cars.
*The obvious reason is the introduction of the blast furnace* which the Romans didn't have.
Really though, the big question that even most dedicated Medieval experts wouldn't be sure of is: *How come Middle East and Asian countries with access to the watermill trip hammers and blast furnaces did not choose to make full plate armor?* Because the cost of raw materials is roughly the same between a maille shirt and a breastplate of decent quality, except the breastplate could be constructed in days compared to the months for the rings of maille.
Japan would be due to lack of consistent access to sufficient resources; they couldn't get a true blast furnace till the early 19th century. But thinking more on it, I am a bit stumped when it comes to other places like China, India and to an extent Korea. One theory for China and the steppes is due to a completely different approach to warfare which didn't emphasize on any core group of elite soldiers. Plus, armor was generally state-funded and produced en mass, and any personal pieces would only be from what blacksmiths could produce. I find that explanation a bit dubious though.
But Korea and India absolutely had core elite soldiers, though they were predominately cavalry archers, India also depending where you look but they had some warrior cultures in some regions strongly emphasized on individually skilled and well-equipped infantry warriors.
Yet full plate armor seems to only persist in Europe, at least when it comes to outfitting many multiple soldiers. Even if we understand that the vast majority of soldiers even in the Late Medieval and Renaissance Period weren't in full plate, whole units were, such as a king's retinue of bodyguards, and as seen in men-at-arms. This one I am a bit stumped on but the only thing I can think of is the quality of the ore and mining available in the unique, geographical region of Europe compared to the Middle East, Asia, and even Russia, but I don't know that for sure.
Armor was present in most ancient armies, from China to the Middle East and not only Europe, but the Europeans went further than others in it in the 15th and 16th centuries AD. The reason is that European knights were fighting primarily with lances and cavalry shocks and these required strong plate armor, the rest of Eurasian cavalry fought primarily as mounted archers , therefore, there was no need to focus heavily on armor, but despite this, armor was improved in the Middle East in the 13th and 14th centuries AD, mostly as a response to European knights during the Crusades
There was also an influx of Sino-Mongol influence into the Middle East during that time (13th-14th century) which might be the origin of most things that we associate with Middle Eastern armor in popular image. East Asia also tend to be more consistent in wearing heavy armor than the Middle East. Vambraces, greaves, thigh armor and mirror plate, these appeared during Mongol-Timurid period and these continued into the 16th century Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal armor.
@@joshg8053 The Mongol invasion also had a role in increasing the armor of knights in the Middle East as part of the increased militarization of the region after the Mongol invasion and the Crusades. At this stage, the Turkic style became predominant in Islamic armor, with Mongol and even Chinese influence and in the middle of the 14th century, heavy Mamluk cavalry armor was equivalent to the armor of a European knight from the same period, but after the mid 14th century the Europeans increased the strength of their armor by making it totally plate instead of mail and lamellar while in the rest of Eurasia they kept the same level of armoring
@@krimozaki9494 I don't know about 14th century Mamluk armor, but the armor used by the late Ilkhanate and Mongol Jalayirid was around the same level as contemporary European knights. I don't think it's Turkic influence really, because in the 200 years after Manzikert, there was barely any change in Middle Eastern armor with things like I mentioned above.
I wouldn't say the rest of Eurasia kept the same level of armoring either, Middle Eastern armor at least in the area under Mongol/Timurid influence took a massive leap compared to what was before. China kept mostly the same level of armor, but showed the addition of bevor for heavy cavalry in the Yuan Dynasty. Japan also increased their armor greatly in the 14th century having full body coverage.
@@joshg8053 Turkic influence began since the Abbasid era, but after the Mongol invasion it became completely dominant, and I mentioned that in the 13th and 14th centuries, cavalry armor increased in the Middle East to reach a level equal to European knights, but it almost remained at that level after that, while since the late 14th century The armor of European knights increased more and reached its peak at the beginning of the 16th century
I am not familiar enough with the armor in the Far East and whether the Mongol cavalry was more armored than the cavalry of the Middle East and if it pushed the cavalry in the Middle East to increase their armour, but I am certain that the Crusader knights played a role in pushing the cavalry of the Middle East to increase their armour. As for the style of the armor Which was adopted, it was always Persian and gradually became Turkish, and perhaps with the Mongol invasion, influence came from the Far East
@@krimozaki9494 If it was always Persian, how did they feel the need to increase their cavalry armor to match European knights, if the Persians were the one using heavy cavalry earlier than Europe?
Greaves, vambraces, thigh armor and mirror disc appeared in Mongol and later Timurid manuscripts in the Middle East during the 14th-15th century. Except maybe for a small mirror disc which the Sassanid might wear as decoration, these weren't shown before the Mongol came into area and also not shown in Parthian/Sassanid era. Not even that, from what I know even looking back to Assyrian period, there was no depiction of vambraces, greaves or thigh armor in the Middle East before the Mongol. The closest thing were the laminar armor used by the Parthian/Sassanid for the arms and legs, but these weren't greaves, vambraces or thigh armor as used post 14th century (these are closer to European cuisse).
As I see it, Middle Eastern armor post 14th century were mostly Mongol armor or heavily influenced by it.
The horses of the knights certainly did not reach speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour. That's the speed of a racehorse carrying a rider weighing about 120 pounds (including saddle) on his back. Another problem - breeds that reach that speed were not bred for the sport until the 18th-19th centuries.
I'm moving among the stunt riders of the movies. The speed of a "war" horse with a rider in armor does not exceed 16 miles per hour. Even that's very hard on impact. Please excuse my rusty English.
I think he accidentally switched which speed was km/h and which was mph. 60 kmh = 37 mph.
The combined meeting speed of two horsemen charging at each other could well have been 50-60 mph. Perhaps he meant that?
War horses were a thing, because they had to be bred to avoid being spooked by a battle. Romantic? Yes, but doesn't mean it wasn't real.
It wouldn't make sense to ride into battle on a horse that will throw you out of self preservation and run away
Otherwise a good video, but you should use images of actual historical armor instead of horrific looking cheap modern reproductions.
Mainly talking about 12:00 , 13:25 , 15:37 and the clips from "the last duel"
Nah, there were a bunch of inaccuracies. The video was entertaining enough though.
@@strateg.o Like what? Just curious because I just started watching mediaeval stuff and I don't wanna be misinformed.
@@shirogami4224 a lot, like a literal bunch. I still consider myself an amateur here, so I'll focus on the visual stuff.
Most of the early medieval armors seen here are depicted well. Nasal helm, maille hauberk, kite shield. Nothing's wrong in a few glances
Entering high medieval. The visual he made for that 12th century knight looks historically correct, but that heater shield looks straight out from a toy store for larp or fantasy game. It should look a bit thin, the lining is just leather, or the shield's front is covered by a linen fabric
Now the late medieval visual the editor included. I'll be harsh, it's ugly. Cheaply made in (insert 3rd world country) ugly. The first few Google images results are much more better than what is presented here.
So yeah, a lot of poor graphics to represent the armors; other ones, the B-roll films that this video editor used, are mostly bad, from Hollywood films that are mediocre, and unauthentic buhurt footages (buhurt is a kind of combat sport wearing very thick steel armor).
As mentioned, the first few search results in Google images have better examples than this, but at least this video will give you a general understanding (though with few significant mistakes that I'll discuss with folks I know)
@@shirogami4224 Well first, it's impossible for a medieval war horse to ever have reached speeds of 50-60MPH while carrying a rider. A full suit of armor alone is 60-80 pounds, and adding other things like the rider himself, lance, sword, shield, and saddle the weight a horse had to carry could reach 290 pounds. Not to mention that horses were bred for size and strength, unlike the ones bred for speed today.
Some of the gear and weaponry he mentions also has incorrect information. When he mentions the gear for an 8th Century knight, he lists the price of a helmet at 6 Solidi. This couldn't have been possible, as a helmet was worth 6 Solidi in the 5th Century, and the Byzantine economy definitely didn't stay stable for 3 centuries.
I'll keep it at this for now, but I could probably find more if you wanted.
The wings and their function on a spear isnt comparable to the crossguard of a sword. The crossguard is added to give something to block with.
The wings on a spear is there to prevent it from sinking in too deep..
Sorry but i have a correction, the first example of knights like warriors come from the Parthian and Sarmatian cataphracts, they were the true first example of frontal charge cavalary and then rome adopted this style of cavalary with thei catafractari and buccellari, most likely the Franchi adopted their heavy cavalary style from roman auxiliaries and from serving under them as foederati
Not quite true. yes their development seems similar at a glance but when you look deeper into things its not quite the same. Yes the knight comes from the northern European celtic/germanic heavy cavalry. Taking influence from the cataphracts no doubt but like i said the cataphracts didnt invent the lance. that was the Europeans.
@@GAMER123GAMING Cataphracts did use lances, but without stirrups or saddles they could not couch them as Europeans did.
@@andrewstrongman305 Well, stirrups weren't a European invention, either. They were introduced to Europe (including the Roman/Byzantine Empire) by the Huns, as afar as we can tell. Also, most of knightly virtues were part of the Sassanian nobles code. And after their introduction by the Huns in the 4th and 5th century, the Roman/Byzantine cataphracts adopted them rather quickly (as the Romans did with all useful military equipment).
@@GAMER123GAMING Iranain heavy cav had v long lances , 1000 years before European knights . Look at carvings in Naghseh Rostam
@@GAMER123GAMING No, the Persians & Scythians used lances way earlier then "Europeans" / Europeans did not invent the lance & it's basically nothing that spectacular either, you just use a spear, but from horseback & that's it / what we can agree on though is, that the Polish Winged Hussars were the ultimate evolution of it
Romans did have full armour for some heavy cavalry tho they used more mail and scale but the legions marched in their armour and didn't have a team of servants to carry their kit. Also the legions paid for their own armour. You have confused the brigandine with the coat of plates. They were making steel plates for armour long before they started using water wheels to speed up production. 17 min in, Ferdinand's armour is not engraved, that is acid etching.
Just to add to your first point, there were a few armies that equipped infantry with full-plate in the late Medieval Era. They also had the advantage of the most advanced harness to distribute the weight, culminating from centuries of development.
European armies weren't optimised for rapid marching over long distances in full-kit like the Romans were.
yes, but they where at the end expendible middle clas food soldiers, not wealthy land owners and rulers. whats interesting is that with the catafracts, the romasn did have thier own knights / super heavy armoured cavallery, beeing mutch more armoured than the fankish knights
What "full armour" ?
@@maximus3160 cataphract heavy cavalry and crupellarius gladiators
They were a response for Persian Cataphracts which were deadly
Free peasant villages owned land communally, and as a community owed military service in exchange for their status for part of the year, usually only weeks or months in case of emergency, with obligation to communally equip a number of their males with arms and armor, which usually was mail, so the idea only nobles and men-at-arms had mail is inaccurate. These villages, ranging from 150 to 300 people had enough money to buy mail for several males which provided that military service, whom were pretty indistinguishably equipped compared to professional soldiers.
In Western Europe? I know about that solution introduced in Byzantine territories by (not sure) Nikephoros I and kicked off the awakening after centuries of survival mode. I am not familiar with events in the west at that time ar all
@@ilijas3041 It was in all of Europe, not just Western Europe, the land wasn't all owned by nobles and the church. There were yeomanry who were peasants owning private land, free villages, peasants owning communally the land around their village, partly free peasant communities, where a lord owned probably up to 30% of a villages surrounding land, but the rest was owned communally, towns and cities, which owned the land around their town or city the same way they do today(and hired tenement farmers to work it for fresh food). They all had some kind of military obligations. As to how much of a country was organized one way or another, it depends, since we're talking about a whole continent and a timespan from around 7th century to 13th century, but non-nobles and non-men-at-arms were always an important part of the armed forces and a lot of them were armed the same way men-at-arms(warriors directly hired by nobles) were.
timeframe might be of relevance for the use of mail. At first it was mostly something for the elites, then as demand rose, so did production, making it cheaper. Then the same goes with plate. These things, if taken care of, don't degrade very fast, so you could repurpose old armor to craft new one, increasing the total supply faster than it depleted.
Hence mail was probably only for the elites in the early middle ages, and then ubiquitous later on.
Same goes with plate
Source? All land owners were required to own weapons, but I have heard of medieval communists.
8:45 into the video there is a major mistake: 1 mile = 1609,34 meters = 1,60934 km. So 35 mph = 56,3269 km/h.
But huge thanks for including metric units!
Cataphratcs and Persan Heavy Cavalry were the earliest form of heavy armor, they were the ones who brought the Knight culture in Europe through the Romans.
The East developped earlier the heavy cavalry but later abandonned it due to how effective light cavalry and skirmishes were in the battlefeild.
Heavy armor was less and less used as the advancement of firearm came by.
Eastern nations didn't abandon use of heavy cavalry. Most elite corps of Ottomans and Safavids were heavy cavalry numbered around 10-20k. These troops clashed frequently with European heavy cavalry, sometimes winning, sometimes losing but praised as way more talented horsemen and more agile horses than European counterparts.
@@Asterix958 Should've used a better term, cavalry wasnt abandonned but new technology were much more envouraged. Which was what I was trying to say
@@theberserker6000 It isn't also true. Ottoman fully switched to muskets and guns in early 16th century but these inventions didn't refute heavy cavalry tactics. Their most elite Sipahi corps remained their effectiveness until 18th century. Same for European armies, European heavy cavalry used full plate armor until Napoleonic Wars at the end of the 18th century. In Napoleonic Wars, heavy armor is removed from cavalry units but they continued to perform heavy cavalry charges just as before. However, as rifle technology improved in the 1870s, cavalry charges had to disappear from the battlefield.
@@Asterix958 Thats was the time period I was thinking, heavy cavalry was used for a long time like I said in my original comment. I thought it was clear enough
@@Asterix958if anything the development of firearms made cavalry MORE important as forces able to quickly close distances in-between rounds of fire. It was dedicated melee troops that started gradually losing their niche when firearms were getting better and more accessible.
Scythians were armourwd from head ro toe, and also their horses were armored. They lived in North of Black sea and in Iran in antiquity. The medieval knights has the stir up who geve them force. This was the main difference.
The word is “stirrup”, not “stir up”.
In the east the most domination units were for a long time have been horse archers and above them heavy armored horse archers. There were many lancer types but they were often seen as the second line troops, mope up units.
persian cataphract are first ultimate knights.
After a bit more thinking on this, I believe that the early driver of European plate-armour development was their increasing reliance on the lance as the primary cavalry weapon. The practice of jousting led to the first examples of breastplates designed to deflect impacts, along with helmets designed for the same purpose. It didn't take long for them to find their way to the battlefield, or for breastplates to be adopted into harness that protected more of the body and limbs.
An often overlooked aspect of the development of full-plate harness was the advantages it offered to infantry on the battlefield, which led to the adoption of two-handed polearms in lieu of shield and spear. The Swiss were probably the first to embrace this tactic, but English knights were also known to prefer fighting on foot.
Exactly. It was very popular, as very little could harm the wearer. Projectiles such as bolts and arrows had little chance of hurting a fully plated knight, and a shield became less useful, allowing for two handed weapons to be utilized more safely.
It was also used for quite long as early gunpowder weapons couldn't penetrate well-made plate armor.
The Great helm isnt 11. century !
More end of 12 , century or better 13.century!
50 to 60 mph? Dam that's a fast horse.
Yup, that number's wildly off. It's more like 10 to 30, the upper end being in absolutely perfect conditions.
He erroneously switched the miles and kilometers
@TallDude73
Yeah, probably, but I think 60 kilometers per hour is still too high.
@@the_Kurganway too high. Something closer to 20 to 30 km/h is the most reasonable.
@leonardomarquesbellini
Well, no, 20-30 mph
A video about the medieval tank from Bohemia? Yes please!
Found an excellent video and a jewel of a channel 👌👌👌 blessings!
Mongols at Legnica, Osmans at Nikopolis: "oh, well, chainmail, laminar and lamellar armors are fine enough!"
At 1241 both European infantry and cavalry only had mail
The mongols liked chain armor and wore it whenever they could. When they've conquered persian smiths they had them make chain armor, not lamellar. Lamellar was a budget metal armor. If you could afford chain, you wore it.
Great! What about Byzantine armor? Could be a good topic for a future video!
Good idea!:) Thanks
Well, technically speaking, full plate armour was also technically in use in feudal japan via samurai, which, if you stretch it a little bit, can be considered as a sort of japanese knightly class.
That armour came to be only afther Europeans came in and showed their armour and gunpoweder weapons.
@@stefankatsarov5806 samurai armour? Scholars agree that the earliest date for the precursor to that armour started in the 4th century, and kept evolving up until the 12th century where samurai really started out. It was with the coming of the europeans that their age *ended*.
Another thing, europeans generally stopped using armour after the widespread adoption of "gunpowder weapons", so it wouldn't make sense to share outdated tech with someone in order to impress then, especially when gunpowder weapons originated in asia.
Samurai armors were laminar for pretty much all of their history, they started using full plate chest pieces, not whole armors, only after firearms had been widely spread by the westerners, and actually inspired themselves of what Europeans were wearing (you can imagine similar chest pieces on conquistadors for example). Also they only used those for a very short time since armors were starting to be a thing of the past very quickly when they started.
It's not plate
Here is a thing, i red plenty of books, about armour, from dark ages 5 - 15 century, and when it comes medieval armour, the first thing i have encountered, was metallurgy problems, getting your hands on decent iron/steel , and making good chainmail from it, or decent weapons from it, was a big problem, soo this part is right that only few wealthy persons or elite guards could afford it, but noone mentions, how you can get good enough armour, for reasonable price than this.
People that played ´´Mount & Blade Viking edition´´ , will find out, that the least you can get was as beginner is tunic, come linen cap, shield made from wood and leather, axe or spear, nothing more, your shield was your armour at that point, for the poor people, since everything that has more than just a little bit of Iron, like spear or axe, is pretty much expensive.
How Gambesons were made
Gambesons, - to understand why they were special , they were made, by sewing technique called quilting that produced a padded cloth, Quilting is the term given to the process of joining a minimum of three layers of fabric together either through stitching manually using a needle and thread, or could be made today by sewing machine.
Few types of armours , and clothes similar to gambeson, : aketon, padded jack, pourpoint ,(from french means doublet), or arming doublet, ( used around 15 century with plates).
Good example is quilted leather jackets and trousers, that were worn by Scythian horsemen before the 4th century BC , which were nomads that ruled over parts Iran, eastern parts of Turkey, and Ukraine.
This is why Gambeson was great against sword slashing attacks, good against a spear, it would more likely stop in the middle of its length, probadly wound you pretty much, probadly get decent bleeding , wont die at the spot after getting stabbed, soo you can hit that guy that has stabbed you with his short spear, against clubs and early maces, it would soften a blow, get broken few of your ribs,if struck repeatedly, if shot by arrows, or stabbed by a knife, you would get a decent wound by that arrow, but it slowed it down, that you are just stabbed slightly stabbed by an arrow.
Depends on what you are using, maybe some heavy hunter tipped arrows, that would make devastating damage to your gambeson, that mind get through, or bodkin arrows, great at penetration, but you are shooting needles, depends on types of bow, if using home made weaker bow, short bow, long bow, or strong warbow, also from what materials, but against slings, with stone, clay or lead sling bullets, you would get decent beating from it, big rocks thrown at you with big speed, could either be absorbed, with broken ribs, or worse.
Later it would improve, here are similar armour that are made similarly, aketon, padded jack, pourpoint, and arming doublet.
An arming doublet worn under armour, particularly plate armour of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe.
So here is a conclusion about Gambeson, you can have three or more layered gambeson, which is great against slashes, it is good softening blows from a mace, but not as much good against arrows, or spear, spear had more power and was more massive in size compared to arrows, that had more speed - penetration, while made by cheaper materials - linen or wool.
Mail armour
Similarly you have a chainmail, which is good by design, but it pretty much depends how quality iron, or steel you can buy, which costs hell of a money to get enough for an armour, to get Byrnie, Haubergeon, Hauberk or Lorica hamata.
Mail - is great against spear, you will get broken ribs, but wont get stabbed, few rings mind fly away, because of that amount of energy to damage the armour, but you can survive, against sword, wont do much do it, than scratch it, arrows, they could potentially just stab you through it, but you would need bodkin arrows to it, otherwise, it could deflect it, if hitting the chain dirrectly, otherwise, not much, gainst knife, and arrows, against slings, you will be in a trouble.
While mail is great against slashes, it wont work by itself, by having only tunic, and chainmail, when getting big rocks thrown at you, the thing about, chainmail was mostly attached by a belt in the middle, or in few more places to stay in a place, soo it wont fall, but it has tendency to slightly move around you , if you wont attache it to your hands, legs properly, to make it become stable and hard armour, by itself, works badly with processing blunted weapon energy, get broken ribs, mind survive, but could get down quickly, if getting direct hit, while not wearing a shield.
Good combination of Mail and gambeson appeared around 6 - 10 Century, in illustrations. but noone is sure about it, Since Archaeological excavation sites, only found iron rings, piece of axe, sword, knife, but not gambeson, because they are used from organic materials, that turn to dust faster than non organic, like piece of Iron/steel.
10:44 looks like the dude is drinking a beer through his helmet like it's Spaceballs.
I couldn’t tell that the narrator was AI until “knights armored themselves and their ‘houses.’”
ye he meant houses.
Dude makes several factual mistakes before even getting to plate armour.
Chainmail was expensive, but that was more due to the general economic decline after the disintegration of the Western Roman Empire and the collapse of the Mediterranean trade routes after the Gothic Wars of Justinian.
It also wasn‘t particularly light.
The Franks were by far not the only ones who had access to it. Chainmail is older than even the idea of a Frankish people.
If you take the historically correct approach, that type of armour composed of many little rings connected to each other forming a garment should be called "mail" or "mail armour". Chainmail is calling it "chain chain". Maille, from which mail comes from, means chain. Chainmail is better known, but incorrect for this type of armour.
Also, technically the Romans had the technology to clad a man from head to toe in metal plates (think gladiatorial pieces of armour such as the manica which covered the entire arm. I am pretty sure they could have made something similar for the thighs. Then take a lorica segmentata, a Signifer's full face helmet plus greaves, and you have almost full plate protection.) Might have been too hot and too impractical long term though.
However, not a single Roman armor was not even close to the full battledress European armor. With the Romans fighting in Germany and Britain, I think it would not have been hot there in such armor. But it's all about the impracticality of such armor for the Roman army, and high cost
Maille is the individual ring
A chainmail is a chain of mails, or a string of meshes
@@SWBGTOCThis is incorrect. The term "chainmail" was created in the 19th century. Otherwise it is, as I already wrote, a pleonasm.
@@call_of_historyI think the main reason full plate armor was impractical for the Roman army is because they relied mostly on a mobile infantry, who can't march long distances quickly while wearing it.
The ability of Roman legionnaires to cover ground quickly, while advancing to, and maneuvering during, battle, offered a significant advantage over enemies and was crucial to many of their victories.
Full plate armor is suitable for cavalry, because the weight is borne by the horse, (which is why it was used by knights and dismounted knights), but the Romans used their cavalry mostly for scouting and routing. so it wasn't needed.
There where a few mistakes and oversides like the naming of the helmets or the leck of gambesons being mentioned or the influence of the Mongols and the crusades but overall a good video about such a broad subject. What I especially like is the positive way that the canel is reaction to constrctive criticism and that they always want to improve, very respectful.
Thank you for your support! We really do try our best for our viewers. Unfortunately, I am not a professional historian, I just study history and share with you interesting points I find in the process of studying.
@@call_of_history And that attitude deserves some respect I think
Czech Republic Mentioned!! Hussites go BRRRRRRRR
Let me guess, the pike? And since you mentioned Bohemia, I'm also guessing the War Wagon. That & gunpowder, too! Am I right?
You right 😎
Chain male can also reduce a fatal stab to just a flesh wound basically.. which surprised me when I first learned
It's been a long time since I comments what incredible elites warriors and thier equipment
I really want to know what weapons they used in Bohemia
Wagon fort, Mass use of Pole-weapons & early firearms
@@tapiokarajaoja9709 Thanks
@@tapiokarajaoja9709 in the 1400s. Of course.
@@GAMER123GAMING Yes, in the 1400s. What's the problem with that? Hussites were comonly using firearms with varietes of calibers.
@@Hevdan1 Because medieval period isnt just 1400. Thats why. Exposed
The abundance of armour and cannons means that Europe more skillfully discovered and developed their mines and metalwork.
Damn, those medieval horses got short-changed on the MPH-to-KMH conversion @8:44!
The Brigandine may have entered Europe through the Mongols. A similar armour called the Bumianja already existed in China much earlier. Also plate leg protection, vembraces & also cuirasses existed in Asia. Just not fully anthromorphic knightly plate armour.
European brigandine developed from the coat of plates independently. If there would have been outside influences, this earlier step would have been skipped.
At the end, are you talking about the Hussite wagon fort?
This video ignores Parthian, Sassanid, Palmyran and Byzantine Cataphracts and Clibinari from the Late Roman Period. Chain mail was made out of pig iron which is brittle. Plate armor was made out of steel which only entered Europe around 1400 AD. Steel, which is much stronger, can also be heat treated and mixed with other metals like chrome. It is also ductile and can bend and absorb impacts. The introduction of steel also led to the replacement of wide bladed broadsword, which tended to notch and break if sharpened, with the thin, flexible and much lighter steel rapier.
While I didn't actually learn anything new, and the video remained superficial or inaccurate in some areas, it was still an entertaining watch.
Probably a good introduction to the topic, too. :)
Actually, full chainmail is quite restrictive to movement when compared to full plate.
thank you for listing sources, really appreciate that, but please try to not mostly use wikipedia, it really is not all that reliable for historicity
The chain mail armor made by some of the Indians and Arabs was insane. Like perfectly tailor fit chain mail suits with metal and or leather plates with silk and velvet throughout. Looks like fantasy armor but it’s real.
great video
Just so you know, The great helm was not developed in the 11th century. It was widely used in the 13th and 14th century before bascinet's replaced it. Anyways, Great video!
Not "Chain Mail", just Mail.
Not gonna finish the video, feeling the need to censor bastard is cringe.
That's on UA-cam moderation.
There's something wrong in the assumptions here: the Roman Empire was poor, and industrialized only regarding buildings and military factories. The High Middle ages were rich in comparison, mostly because of increasing trade due to the Crusades.
Italy was able to prosper when it no longer had the roman yoke.
Technically it was rediscovered/reinvented. It first started in the Bronze Age with the Achaeans in the Bronze Age and then again with the Roman Crupellarius.
great video and I would love to see another about the Husites.
Archaeologists found chain mail in Poland dating back to the 10th century. It is one of the best preserved chain mail armor in Europe. The chain mail was lying at the bottom of the lake in the silt zone. There is no access to oxygen in such a layer of silt , which is why the chain mail was so well preserved even though it had been there for over 1,000 years. Kind regards!
Outside of highly bred racehorses most horses cannot go faster than 30-35 MPH. When you consider that most draft horses of today, Belgians and Clydesdales for instance, were originally bred as heavy warhorses capable of carrying a man in heavy armor all day the top speed is 25-30 MPH.
8:44 There is a small mistake in kmph to mph conversion. 50mph is around 80 kmph
Eastern Europe and the Rest of the world did develop different styles of armor like Scale, Lamellar and full plate equivalent Plate mail.
Id say in many ways platemail is more optimal, less heavy and easier to mass produce.
Yes fullplate offers the biggest protection, but who cares if you cant ever afford it.
yes we want video about wagon wall
PLEASE make a video about the Bohemian Hussites!! Its an extremely interesting topic
I'm waiting for the weapons that's Bohemia used to defeated knights....
Mycenaeans:
BRONZE PLATE, BABY!
Horses don't go 50 to 60 mph. Not even when you double the speed with both horses charging each other.
Interesting. Also yes I would like to know what weapon those bohemians used to counter the knights.
a wall
I read about that a long time back, it was a pole with iron spikes driven through both ends forming a cross and (probably) along the axis of the pole as well. They would shout "Guten Tag" while using it :) Imagine a quarter staff with nasties bristling from it. Nothing like deep puncture wounds to ruin someone's day!
It's not about some special weapon. Any weapon is just a weapon. The most important thing are people who use it and what they do. And the Bohemians had very good discipline and organization of their things - not only on military side. I bet his movie about Hussite wars will be something like: "Bohemians have those big and nasty pikes and battle flails and they used firearms to beat armour and medieval wooden tanks! And that is why they've beaten crusaders blah blah..." But he will miss the most important historical facts.
Yeah, well, both the Mongols and the Persians used Knights armor quite extensively. Remember, these were the horse riders, from where all the innovations came which actually let to use such tactics.
Rome did not fall in 476 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire continued for another thousand years, and the Western Roman Empire was basically replaced by a Roman-Germanic kingdom that mostly continued Roman culture & institutions. Odoacer who deposted the last WRE emperor actually called himself a Roman patrician and Roman king, had the support of the Western Roman Senate, continued Roman institutions, ruled like a Roman, and considered himself a client/vassal of the Eastern Roman Empire's emperor.
Everyone knows it.... still enden in 476 AD
@@gavils 476 AD is the pop culture date for people who don't realize the Eastern Roman Empire continued for another thousand years and the Western Roman Empire was simply replaced by a Roman kingdom that continued Roman institutions and government. The Romans in the 5th century never thought Rome fell in 476 AD. That 476 AD number was invented by a 6th century Eastern Roman politician who wanted to delegitimize the Roman kingdoms in Italy and give the Eastern Roman Empire an excuse to invade Italy.
@@Intranetusa We Italians all know that. Because our ancestors did the history. And yet its still 476 AD, because there is no Rome without Rome and Italy. There are only Greek speekers and barbarians. Its like with the middle age, did it end exactly in 1492? No. But people, that know much more than you, decided that it was when the Italian Cristoforo Colombo landed on San Salvador. You may not like it. But this is how it is. And Italians do it better of course.
@@gavils The Roman kingdom that replaced the Western Roman Empire did have the city of Rome, so by your own standards they would be Roman. And the unified Roman Empire moved the capital of the unified empire to Constantinople in the 4th century AD. Rome stopped being the capital during the time, and even after the split of the empire into east and west, Rome still wasn't the capital of the Western Roman Empire for most of the time. In the early 400s, the capital of WRE was Mediolanium. Then it was Ravenna. In 476 AD, the capital of the Western Roman Empire when it was replaced by the Roman kingdom wasn't Rome either. So again, your 476 AD is completely arbitrary even by your own standards.
People who chose these dates like 476 AD had a political agenda that did not reflect history or real life conditions.
As for your claim that Italians do it better, Italians like you just sound salty that the Eastern Roman Empire continued the government and legacy of Roman Empire without Italy if you continue to deny the Eastern Romans and the Roman kingdom were Romans.
@@Intranetusa There is nothing arbitrary in 476 AD, Romolo Augustolo was a usurpator and a puppet, but still the last Roman Emperor. After him only Barbarians wich, of course, liked to call themself Romans.
No saltyness, belive me. For me the real Rome ended in 27 BC, so i dont really care anyway, i preffer the history of the republic.
Im sorry, but Eastern Romans, even if they liked to call themself Romanoi, spoke greek and were hellenistic. They certanly never conquered the empire that the Roman/Latin farmer and his socii has.
The english word Knight is much older than the 11th century.
A cnight was an anglosaxon farmhand. A free servant.
interesting that you choose the peasent uprising in the 15th century instead of the battle of the golden spurs which really decimated knights vs peasents.
werent equites wich means reserves light cavalry like littelary light cavarly not even used much for combat coz they werent meant for it but to be scouts and mesage ,orders delivery
Well, battle role aside (and there definitely were even cavalry vs cavalry battle actions)... equites were whole social class in ancient Rome just as the knights were in medieval Europe (both being basically lesser nobility), so the comparison is pretty justified. Also fun fact, equites means horse riders in Latin - the words for knight means exactly that in many medieval/modern languages (ritter - German, chevalier - French, caballero - Spanish), English is kind of an exception with knight being derived from the Germanic word for servant (compare to German knecht).
Equites were a social class firstband batllefield role second. Their exact equipment and training for combat varied from time and place. Sometimes lighter and inefficient, sometimes heavier and more competent.
Nice to provide historical and cultural context. Good work. Liked and shared.
10:04 That’s the Elden Ring’s armor!
Yeah😅 But I think this image gives a great sense of what the culchuku outfit looked like from head to toe.
A large horse, carrying an armoured rider being able to run 50-60 mph? I don't think so. A trained and conditioned American quarterhorse can run up to about 55 mph. But these horses are bred to run, highly trained, carrying a lite weight rider and a very lite saddle. I think it's safe to say the knights didn't have horses anything like a quarterhorse.
A great story of a peasant uprising is the war of the gulden spurs with the invention of the 'goedendag' (good day translated to english).
The Great Helm was not used in the 11th century, it wasn't introduced until the very late 12th century.
CORRECTION:
Knight armour didn't just developed in Europe, we europeans were weird in placing names to noblemen wo rode to war on horses while being clad in heavy armor
the horses and stamina, also the horse's shoe
Because Europe had the most war for the longest time with the most advanced technology at the time.
Actually technically plate armor was invented in Europe around the middle of the 13th century.
14:22 I think you got that one wrong. They valued their soldiers _too much_ to give them overweight armor. And their soldiers would not have uses it, even if provided.
The Roman helmet ended up in that light form because any more was _detrimental_ to survival odds.
They had heavier helmets - just see the gladiators - but those encumbered you, limited your breathing, limited your situational awareness and could not be easily swaped between march and combat modes. Add to that a infantry that marched with their gear - and anything heavier would have been a downgrade.
15.4 pounds doesnt mean 15 lbs and 4 oz
Correction. A 🐎 cannot run at 50-60 MILES per hour 😅... or else why would we invent cars? You must mean 50-60 *Kilometres* per hour, even then... more like 35 kph.
...
Interesting video all the same, keep up the good work! 👍
Medieval knights were just Parthian Cataphracts 2.0
01:06 "And why didn't even the romans who had the means armed their legionnaires in plate"
(Shows a legionnaire armed in plates)😅😅😅
Europe only started to develop plate armour in 15th and 16th century that soon see decline due to gunpowder warfare anyway. Prior to that it was only mail for both infantry and cavalry during the rest of its medieval period. Mamluk, India and Ottoman also had "Plate on mail armor" where plates are embedded on mail that's prety much similar to plate, and around 15/16th century plate armor was also seen in Ottoman. Mongols didnt have heavy cavalry was also a myth, they were armored to the teeth with steel lamellar that was not only more economical to produce / repair, but also superior to mail for protection. Mail armor has been tested that they are very piercable with arrow shots or spear stab.
The first appearance of plates added to mail armor in europe is from the late 13th century, and it became more prevalent during the 14th century.
early 15th century is when you start seeing fully artiulated plate that could completely replace mail.
As for mail being "very" piercable, that depends wildly on the type or mail. If you take a basic 1-4 butted mail with large ring, you can punch through with a kitchen knife. Take thick rings, riveted 1-6 pattern, and your lance will barely go through the gambeson to scratch the skin (exept if it's held by a charginghorseman, that is).
It was developed by many civilisations and used for 1500 years, it probably was quite decent
Plate armour really was made because of increase in power of bows and guns, sadly that power continued to increse and in time the guns became too powerfull and coud penetrate all the types of armour so its production stoped ( tehnically it continued in the form of curases and helmets for cavalry intill the late napoleonic era ).
@@stefankatsarov5806 Well, plate armour is still used to this day. See: tanks. Also even at World War II they had some cuirasses made of metal.
did youtube just really make you censor bastard sword?
I'm amazed at how accurate this video is compared to other ones (especially the part about the Carolingian period).
However ther is a massive flaw when it comes to the helmets.
What you called a spangen helm was actually a Norman helm. And it's a 11th century helmet. The great helm wasn't invented until the 13th century. The spangen helm was used during the Viking period and features side plates instead of the 11th century nasal guard.
This is because 12th century knights didn't need more protective helmets than the norman helm. They mostly fought infantry which didn't pose that much of a threat to their faces and when they needed to protect their faces against cavalry they could just raise their big kite shields to completely block a blow.
Thanks for the clarification! Yes, sorry about the names of the helmets, we may have made a mistake somewhere. We are trying to improve:)
Persian and Roman Cataphracts were heavily armored
I don't remember which Carolingian king also forbade export of Frankish sword blades because they came back in the hands of Norse raiders.
and weren't shields made of linden wood? Norse poetry uses that tree name to mean shield, and there's actually an ancient lindenwood shield exposed at the medieval Cluny museum in Paris.
why they bleeped bastardsword
This is amazing good job call of history
How come Serbia was not mentioned? In the late Middle Ages, Serbian heavy cavalry was tougher than that of Western Europeans (or the Timurids for that matter also) as shown in sources describing the Battle of Nicopolis (1396) in which the Serbian heavy cavalry demolished the Crusader knights.
I'm not sure where the myth that chainmail was more expensive than plate came from. The manufacture of plate-armour (such as lorica segmentata) required skilled armourers and high-quality iron ingots. Lorica hamata (chainmail) could be manufactured by blacksmiths and assembled by slaves or apprentices. It's one of the reasons the Romans reverted to chainmail (and scaled mail for officers and cavalry).
There is no simple answer to why full-plate harness wasn't developed before the Europeans perfected it. Smaller populations and the rise of feudalism likely played a large role, as did access to high-quality ores and the development of processes to smelt and forge them in large volume.
I think it's interesting to note that the Middle-Eastern and North African powers chose not to adopt plate-armour largely due to it's impracticality in hot climates. The Japanese, on the other hand, had lacked the iron resources to develop full-plate, but European cuirasses became extremely popular with their Samurai, and Western armour styles heavily influence Japanese armour.
50 to 60 miles an hour? Highway speeds? Maybe you mean 50 to 60 km/h, even that is a stretch
Did you seriously censor "bastard sword?" 🙄
It's started with Cataphracts in the Eastern Roman empire. Franks borrowed the design, and some Roman craftsmen helped.
I just want to say that it feels very weird to hear "Odoacer" pronounced "Oh-DAY-ser." I have never heard anyone speak of him in such a way before. It should be "Oh-doh-ACK-ehr."
Persians and Roman cataphracts say hello
Didn't the Romans adapt the concept of Cataphracts in the 2nd century A.D. ?
What are medieval weapons that's peasant used in battle
Mainly polearms. Polearm with a helmet and something to cover your body, that was crucial.
11th century greathelm? come on now
Guys, pleeeease make more content, and upload more frequently - you are top notch. You are working hard on each episode, absolutely love it. I am your subscriber, and you are absolute fire.
Thank you!:) Now we will again try to upload videos every 2 weeks.
bro where is mentioning of the byzantine cataphracts?
this doesnt get the attention it deserves, its such a good video
Thank you:)
Die Waffe die stark an nutzen gewann, war der Hammer/Keule/Axt Typ der als Stumpfe Waffe mit Spitzen oder Scharfen Elementen dafür genutzt wurde die schweren Plattenrüstungen zu penetrieren/ looking at thoose armors blood was not the only thing dripping out on the battlefield