I think the reason the rondel dagger didn't break a ring in this case is not only that there's hardly enough force comparing to a swing with a warhammer, but also that the dagger doesn't need to break a ring, given how narrow and tapered it is near the tip. It doesn't need to break a ring to stab in, but the 20-layer linen is just too much for it to penetrate so it basically got stopped by the gambeson before it even reaches the point broad enough that needs to break a ring to go any further. I think if you test the dagger against maille on top of a less rigid and thick gambeson and flesh (say pork shoulder, instead of a heavy bag), you may see different results. The warhammer's spike broke a ring because it has to given how stout (broadens and thickens quickly from the point) it is, to penetrate further (of course a swing with a warhammer doesn't lack momentum whatsoever), it quickly reached the point that a maille ring had to break for the spike to go further.
Also he did the test on something that's super soft which folds the armour and absorbs all the energy from the test. Put something under there that's a little bit stiffer and you'll get a different result. Just like you will on a human. Some parts are squisky, some parts are quite solid. This is why gladiators put on a LOT of body fat. Squishiness is great protection.
Great test! This is something ive been very curious about lately... Very interesting results. Thanks for sacrificing yourself Nathan! Lol. Keep up the incredible work guys. 👍
Thank you for doing these tests. Keep in mind that this is rather thick padding, & mail wasn't always worn with that much fabric underneath. It is even feasible to have 24 layers of linen over the armpit, for example? We know various 15th/16th-century treatises on armored combat did instruct targeting the armpit, which was covered with mail & some amount of fabric, with sword thrusts. Also, what is this mail made out of? If it's mild steel, then probably most historical mail was slightly worse because of slag, but the best historical harden mail might have even better. (& of course some historical mail was thicker & denser for even more protection at the cost of extra weight.)
The mail should be under tension as it would be when worn as that way it wouldn't give as much. I think it would be easier to break links and puncture in that form.the way it bunches up when struck like this absorbs a lot of the energy. I noticed similar on many other tests that have been done and think having a loose square of mail is a factor that distorts results.
@@adampalamara I guess we will never know how protective mail was, though the upcoming AvA 2 features a comparison between high quality (historically accurate) reproduction and the commercially made, cheap stuff.
You mentioned breaking bones, and penetrating mail but maybe even bigger advantage of blunt weapons and war hammers is internal damage to soft tissue. It’s often overlooked because obviously we have only bones to check. Good resources for this are diaries of Polish soldiers from the XVI - XVIII century. They often describe soldiers falling from one hit to the torso, getting up, only to die few days later in pain and fever. If your internal bleeding was big, death came quick and was a mercy. If hit was delivered to upper torso, heart could burst, killing fast, because shockwave from the hit increases hydrostatic pressure inside the heart. Another, pretty scary death cause is that chest blunt trauma can disrupt heart rhythm, causing domino effect in the system leading to cardiac arrest. It sometimes happens in baseball, from ball hit. For the research, official name of this injury is Commotio Cordis (Cardiac Concussion). Best resource in this days are books about forensic pathology practice, dealing with car, train or airplane accidents. In many cases research was done on alive pigs to measure exact forces and speeds that can cause search. Good example for research: for example “ Forensic Science and Medicine: Forensic Pathology of Trauma: Common Problems for the Pathologist”.
Why are the langets on the war hammer so small compared to your other poleaxes/polehammers? Is it still as durable? I am looking to buy a warhammer from you guys but I am worried about the short langets.
that is the way the original on this piece is. I have seen similar hammers with double langets, longer ones inset under the shorter ones. But on this original they are set up this way.
"What did we learn from this"? Mainly that putting a piece of wood behind loose mail over padding makes it much easier to break a link! Any reason you changed the test for your warhammer?
Hmm not sure will have to go back and review. It may just be the difference from one week to the next and what we had in our minds as the focus of the example.
The medium behind the testing is always the key factor. Squishy backgrounds prevent penetration, stiff backgrounds allow it. Nobody ever gets this right in testing lol. You have to do both to approximate different parts of the body. A rib cage and a belly are two different targets with totally different results. Tod's testing used a firm foam background.......this testing used a fairly soft punching bag. Both used different amounts of cloth armour.
Interesting, I've heard this about the point many times before and i always thought about the countries that seem to continue to favour striking over thrusting even in later periods. It always seemed to me that they must have thought it was effective or they'd have changed to thrusting too.
I was under the impression that the flat round pommel of the rondel was meant to provide a flat surface for the second hand to strike onto to penetrate deeper. Like a mallet hitting on a chisel held fast by the off-hand. Hell, one could strike the pommel with the warhammer but I'd wager that this would ruin the dagger. This rondel dagger you're using is unsuitable for that but other types might do the trick?
Possible though even with the hand on the back of the dagger the thrust would have about the same affect. Hitting it with something like driving a spike may work but that is a complex action in a fight.
You're correct. Archers and pikemen etc all carried these because it was the most effective way to kill people in armour when they had non or little. You don't stab them, you drag them down, place the dagger on a soft spot and lean your body on top of it to drive it through.
I think the reason the rondel dagger didn't break a ring in this case is not only that there's hardly enough force comparing to a swing with a warhammer, but also that the dagger doesn't need to break a ring, given how narrow and tapered it is near the tip. It doesn't need to break a ring to stab in, but the 20-layer linen is just too much for it to penetrate so it basically got stopped by the gambeson before it even reaches the point broad enough that needs to break a ring to go any further. I think if you test the dagger against maille on top of a less rigid and thick gambeson and flesh (say pork shoulder, instead of a heavy bag), you may see different results.
The warhammer's spike broke a ring because it has to given how stout (broadens and thickens quickly from the point) it is, to penetrate further (of course a swing with a warhammer doesn't lack momentum whatsoever), it quickly reached the point that a maille ring had to break for the spike to go further.
Also he did the test on something that's super soft which folds the armour and absorbs all the energy from the test. Put something under there that's a little bit stiffer and you'll get a different result. Just like you will on a human. Some parts are squisky, some parts are quite solid. This is why gladiators put on a LOT of body fat. Squishiness is great protection.
Great test! This is something ive been very curious about lately... Very interesting results.
Thanks for sacrificing yourself Nathan! Lol. Keep up the incredible work guys. 👍
Thank you!
Thank you for doing these tests. Keep in mind that this is rather thick padding, & mail wasn't always worn with that much fabric underneath. It is even feasible to have 24 layers of linen over the armpit, for example? We know various 15th/16th-century treatises on armored combat did instruct targeting the armpit, which was covered with mail & some amount of fabric, with sword thrusts. Also, what is this mail made out of? If it's mild steel, then probably most historical mail was slightly worse because of slag, but the best historical harden mail might have even better. (& of course some historical mail was thicker & denser for even more protection at the cost of extra weight.)
yep, all you said is true that is why we emphasize this is but a data point in a large and complex discussion.
The mail should be under tension as it would be when worn as that way it wouldn't give as much. I think it would be easier to break links and puncture in that form.the way it bunches up when struck like this absorbs a lot of the energy. I noticed similar on many other tests that have been done and think having a loose square of mail is a factor that distorts results.
Quite possible, we will look into seeing if we have a piece large enough to test this.
Thanks for making these videos. I learn a lot.
Very interesting, and puts things in perspective.
Our point ! :-) ha ha sometimes we are hilarious.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 You make me feel uncomfortable. I won't ask an you don't needz tell
A similar test was done with a block of foam, then with a ham. I wonder if the punching bag has too much give to allow better pennetration
Could you tell us some parameters (inner diameter, ring thickness etc.) of the mail used in these tests?
Guess not..
@@adampalamara I guess we will never know how protective mail was, though the upcoming AvA 2 features a comparison between high quality (historically accurate) reproduction and the commercially made, cheap stuff.
You mentioned breaking bones, and penetrating mail but maybe even bigger advantage of blunt weapons and war hammers is internal damage to soft tissue. It’s often overlooked because obviously we have only bones to check. Good resources for this are diaries of Polish soldiers from the XVI - XVIII century.
They often describe soldiers falling from one hit to the torso, getting up, only to die few days later in pain and fever. If your internal bleeding was big, death came quick and was a mercy.
If hit was delivered to upper torso, heart could burst, killing fast, because shockwave from the hit increases hydrostatic pressure inside the heart.
Another, pretty scary death cause is that chest blunt trauma can disrupt heart rhythm, causing domino effect in the system leading to cardiac arrest. It sometimes happens in baseball, from ball hit. For the research, official name of this injury is Commotio Cordis (Cardiac Concussion).
Best resource in this days are books about forensic pathology practice, dealing with car, train or airplane accidents. In many cases research was done on alive pigs to measure exact forces and speeds that can cause search. Good example for research: for example “ Forensic Science and Medicine: Forensic Pathology of Trauma: Common Problems for the Pathologist”.
Great info!
Why are the langets on the war hammer so small compared to your other poleaxes/polehammers? Is it still as durable? I am looking to buy a warhammer from you guys but I am worried about the short langets.
that is the way the original on this piece is. I have seen similar hammers with double langets, longer ones inset under the shorter ones. But on this original they are set up this way.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Oh ok thank you so much! I love your products and how you guys stick to realism!
Gotta try the mail... But just it by itself... No cloth behind.
Hammer is extra destructive
is the rondel on rondel dagger functioning in the same way as a disk guard in Japanese swords?
hmmm good question, I would say so with our limited knowledge oriental sword use. Others may have more info.
it is mostly to stop your hand to go thru the blade, the tsuba of the katana being bigger also offer some hand protection
It's easy to index and it closes what would be a gap to your armored hand
"What did we learn from this"? Mainly that putting a piece of wood behind loose mail over padding makes it much easier to break a link! Any reason you changed the test for your warhammer?
Hmm not sure will have to go back and review. It may just be the difference from one week to the next and what we had in our minds as the focus of the example.
What if it's used against chestplate armor?
interesting to see the difference in findings between yourself and tod cutler
The medium behind the testing is always the key factor. Squishy backgrounds prevent penetration, stiff backgrounds allow it. Nobody ever gets this right in testing lol. You have to do both to approximate different parts of the body. A rib cage and a belly are two different targets with totally different results. Tod's testing used a firm foam background.......this testing used a fairly soft punching bag. Both used different amounts of cloth armour.
Interesting, I've heard this about the point many times before and i always thought about the countries that seem to continue to favour striking over thrusting even in later periods. It always seemed to me that they must have thought it was effective or they'd have changed to thrusting too.
yes, it never is only one way or another.
Yes, stab it again!
Okay, I am thinking that a war hammer may be more useful in a zombie apocalypse... or even a regular one.
In other news, it turns out that you need a can-opener to effectively open a can. Excellent video.
That's true!
I was under the impression that the flat round pommel of the rondel was meant to provide a flat surface for the second hand to strike onto to penetrate deeper. Like a mallet hitting on a chisel held fast by the off-hand. Hell, one could strike the pommel with the warhammer but I'd wager that this would ruin the dagger.
This rondel dagger you're using is unsuitable for that but other types might do the trick?
Possible though even with the hand on the back of the dagger the thrust would have about the same affect. Hitting it with something like driving a spike may work but that is a complex action in a fight.
You're correct. Archers and pikemen etc all carried these because it was the most effective way to kill people in armour when they had non or little. You don't stab them, you drag them down, place the dagger on a soft spot and lean your body on top of it to drive it through.