The hussar's lance was attached to the horse through the use of a "tok" rather than held under the arm by the rider, so all energy was transferred to the enemy through the full weight of the rider and horse. This is not often depicted in visualizations and screenings in movies, and was cruelly effective against infantry (piercing several infantrymen).
And it was hollow inside to splinter upon contact to prevent throwing the rider off the saddle. Also, it was the King's prerogative to provide these lances to hussars, so on each battle the King provided wagons of these lances as hussars attack multiple times in succession.
Also author didn't check husar armor correctly, because animal furs had additional role and it was to hide less armored back. Hussars compared to other heavy cavalry could fight both as riders and as footmen, because of their very innovative armor, and that was its "folding" design and less, even in some cases non-armored back to lessen Hussar weight and provide as much protection as possible to the front.
@@jackswiatek5221 Lance is full not hollow inside. If they are hollow break up like copy. How they can withstand charge on enemy and have power to pierce if they are hollow?
@@piowers Are you Polish? I can send you links to specific books which explains it. If you are not Polish, here is a google translation of small part of a book about Hussars written by Dr. Radosław Sikora, a Polish historian specializing in these matters. "Dr. Radosław Sikora, historian of modern military affairs, author of such books as "The Phenomenon of Hussars", "Unusual Battles and Charges of Hussars", and "Hussars. "The pride of Polish weapons" explains in an interview with "Wprost" why the hussar lance was such a unique weapon. - Mainly because of its length, which made it possible to knock down the opponent before his weapon hit the hussar or his horse. The hussar lance differed from the medieval one in that it was hollowed out in the middle, which allowed it to be significantly extended, the historian emphasizes."
@@piowers Using such a long spear significantly increased the load on the hussar's arm. To make the bending moment, or, to put it simply, the forces acting on the arm of a person holding a long lance, smaller, the hussars began to use special tracks, i.e. leather sleeves hanging on a belt attached to the saddle, into which the back of the lance was placed. - Leaving the tip of the copy in progress allows you to wield a much longer weapon, but there is one downside. When the hussar tilted his lance while charging, the vibrations of the horse were transferred to the weapon itself. This made aiming very difficult. It takes a lot of training to use a copy efficiently in this way, says Dr. Sikora, who is also privately involved in historical reconstruction. Additionally, by leaving the lance in progress during the impact, the force of the attack did not directly hit the hussar's arm, but was also transferred to the saddle.
Pelts on Hussars backs were not meant to intimidate opponents but both to act as a showoff of status (most expensive were leopard pelts and less expensive these of wolves), and believe it or not but these pelts also served as a protection against arrows. Lances were hollow inside to splinter upon contact to prevent throwing the rider off the saddle. Also, it was the King's prerogative to provide these lances to hussars, so on each battle the King provided wagons of these lances as hussars attacked multiple times... even up to 12 times in succession. I wished someone provided the battle tactics of hussars as their mastery in horse riding and the way these horses were trained is exceptional. Hussars would not be the same without their horses and a trained horse was worth back then the price of a village.
As people here mentioned, polish hussars wings wasnt the cause of whistle - it was 2 m flags on the ends of the lances that was scaring enemy horses. The wings was only for status image and were mostly not 2 but 1 attached to horse saddle. Also they were provided by king (manufactured only in Kraków and Wilno) and it was forbiden to trade it abroad (under death penalty, like hussar horses). PS. Bechter wasnt polish invention but crimean tatar or muscovites.
The hussar wings concealed the number and formation of the unit before the battle. this way the opponent did not know on which wing there were more warriors. This gave an advantage because the stronger wing of teh unit was reforming and it was possible to attack simultaneously from the front and from the side. The second advantage of wings is the concealment of charges in a loose formation. The musketeers aimed at the Hussar figure that looked larger and therefore fired too early, which was less effective. Then the first and second ranks changed formation into a tight formation, which increased the force of the charging unit attack.
@@PR_nick The main role of the hussar wings was to protect against the arcana used by the Turks and Tatars. Therefore, wings were curved to protect the head
Worth to mention that wings on winged hussars armor also were for: protecting from nets which Tatars use to take down horseman also for ceremony and for scare enemy horses which wasnt trained for that kind of noise.
Primo, Tatars used arkans which is their term for lasso, not nets. Secundo, hussar armours don't have any wings. Those that do are XIX-century fabrications. No surviving armour from the period has any wings attached to them. There is also almost no depiction of hussar armour having wings in iconography.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Due to a regiment's rulebook of one of Malopolska's armored cavalry regiments written in late XVI century, wings were worn either on hussar's back or hussar's saddle and their main purpouse was to intimidate enemy, not to scare enemy's horses. Do you say that the nobleman writing that rulebook for his regiment was a liar and those wings he describes were invented by fantasy writers 300 years later?
@@Northerner-NotADoctor Pfft. Then cite this "rulebook". Keep in mind that I wrote that there is no evidence of attaching wings to armor (aside from winged helmets). Not that wigs were never used. Of course they were, there is a ton of evidence from iconography and written sources for that. But not a single mention od depiction of huge s-shaped wings attached to the hussar's armor backplate. The closest thing we got is the depiction of anatomical wings in the painting Battle of Vienna by Martino Altomonte.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 There are original armors and saddles of both types (in museums, available to watch). There were armors with wings attached to it, not only saddles. Paintings from XVIc and remaining artifacts show it clearly. Although I've never seen white wings. They were usually dark in the paintings from the epoch. If you want to find that Regulamin (rulebook) then just use google. I easily found it and anyone interested in the subject should also have no problems on it. Maybe I was mistaken and it was written in XVIIc, not in XVIc.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 primo they used somethines but one wing connected to saddle...Two wings was for ceremonial usages. And they use nets you must soak into history a bit more.
It is said that the wings on Hussars were also ment as a protection against “bolos” resp. “lassos” used esp. by Tatars which served in Turkish troops as light cavalry.
The take on samurai armor is pretty strange. Yes, the main situation for samurai until around 1300 was as a mounted archer but over time, samurai tended to become foot soldiers using a yari (pike). While archers continued to exist, it was rare for them to be mounted during the sengoku period (warring states era 1477 to 1600) and the type of armor changed.
@@call_of_history ale i think you underestimate european armor flexibility, i have no problem somersaulting or using bow in mine and mine isnt even of high quality. and it virtually immune to arrows. altho i dont exactly know the strenght of japanesee bows, they re strang xd
@@call_of_history There are some other inaccuracies in this video. The image of the Chu Kingdom rhino hide armor is actually an image of the Han Dynasty's iron/steel lamellar armor. There are actually images/recreations/fragments of Chu Kingdom hide armor and it does not look like that. Furthermore, the stone armor is not for the Chinese emperor and was not actually found in his tomb. It is generic armor for a soldier of the Qin emperor, and was found in a warehouse/pit outside of the emperor's tomb in the general burial complex that is several square miles/square kilometers in area. That type of armor is seen on thousands of Qin terra cotta soldiers. The actual tomb of the Qin emperor has never been opened so nobody knows what is inside or what his armor looked like.
The yari is a generic word for spear that could range from a short 4 foot spear to a very long 20 foot spear (pike). By the Sengoku era, Samurai did indeed serve as footsoldiers as well. However, many Samurai served as heavy cavalry by using the yari or other polearms on horseback. While horse archery was no longer their most common or primary role, some Samurai could pull double duty by using both a bow and a yari/other polearm while on horseback.
@Thalaranthey Full plate armor (invented in the late 14th century) is basically invunerable to arrows except for a few small gaps/weak points. Chainmail was more resistant to some types of broader arrows from weaker bows or arrows from longer distances, but narrower arrows from stronger bows at shorter ranges will punch right through chainmail. The Japanese warbows of the feudal period could reach strong draw weights. The Ming and Qing Dynasties were using bows typically around 70-170 lbs in draw weight (with some rare outliners in the 200s lbs range) and the Song Dynasty wrote they required upper tier elite archers to shoot a minimum of 160s lb draw weight bows. IIRC, one of these dynasties had a record that said some Japanese warriors used heavy draw weight bows that could shoot a heavy arrow through a ceramic roof tile.
In fact, several sets of rhino skin armor were unearthed from Marquis Yi of Zeng. It is said that rhino skin armor is made by attaching layers of rhino skin to a wooden bases, and then applying a hardened layer of Chinese lacquer, often mixed with porcelain chips to enhance protection. The wooden bases and rhino skin of the armor in tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng have rotted away, leaving only hardened layers.
The winged hussars also haven't lost a single battle in over 100 years from 1524 to 1625. During most of the battles they were heavily outnumbered like in the battle of Kircholm (3500 winged hussars vs 11000 Swedish troops) or battle of uh... It was somewhere in Russia where they were outnumbered 10 to 1 and still won. Historians are saying the Hussars had to charge even 10 times in a row that day.
Thanks for making this video! As you said the knights armor and the samurais were created for different type of warfare and each of them is perfect for their own environment.
8:04 Polish hussars have humble origins. Initially they were Hungarian mercenaries. This has changed when king Stefan Batory reorganised hussars. Also long lance was hollow inside to reduce weight. It was suppose to shatter on impact. Think about it as a dum-dum bullet. Hussars were expending many lances during one battle.
Hussars - werry rich man. Special types of horses, special types of armor, lance, 2 pistols, 1-2 warhammers, sabre. Noise was made by charging horses and flag on lance. They attacked, move back, change horses and weapons and charge again. and again.... and again....
The video talks about the medieval pike, which was shorter than a hussar's lance. In the Modern era, pike became longer and could reach up to 7 meters🙂
The trick is that pikemans had to set thier pikes on angle about 30-45 degres, riders usually put their lances straight to enemy, so effectively pikes has shorter range than lance
On the battlefield they never had these s shaped "wings" on their back. They used them later in history in ceremonial occasions when this formation was out of use. In historical paintings they depicted (not all of them) having something like one strip with feathers mounted to saddle, so the actual noise while charging mentioned in this video was probably from the long pennants on lances fluttering at a gallop speed
Also it is very likely that those famous wings of hussars were those pennants. Pennants were splited into two long stripes and while hussars was raiding in full gallop and you stood in front of them and look at their charge, you probably would see long stripes going up and down like if horses have real wings. Must be incredible view, probably your last one, but still incredible ;)
Yes Polish hussars never used their wings while riding. All these churches are usually 18th-19th century fakes. Hussars used wings only in one period, when they were used for funerals or parades, i.e. the 18th century.
Samuai armor went through various iterations as did european armor. What you showed was late 10th to early 11th century. Once samurai started adopting muskets under oda nobunaga they began adopting a wedge shape in the armor for deflecting musket rounds.
Wings on "winged hussars" was attached to saddle, not back of armor. Most it was 1 wing, not 2. Most of this armor in museum, are replicas....(myth about wing attached to armor is from 19 century paintings)....yea, im from Poland :)
The image of the Chu Kingdom rhino hide armor is actually an image of the Han Dynasty's iron/steel lamellar armor. There are actually images/recreations/fragments of Chu Kingdom hide armor and it does not look like that. Furthermore, the stone armor is not for the Chinese emperor and was not actually found in his tomb. It is generic armor for a soldier of the Qin emperor, and was found in a warehouse/pit outside of the emperor's tomb in the general burial complex that is several square miles/square kilometers in area. That type of armor is seen on thousands of Qin terra cotta soldiers. The actual tomb of the Qin emperor has never been opened so nobody knows what is inside or what his armor looked like.
Why only rich nobility could be Winged Hussars? It is mainly connected with prices of horses and for every campaign every cavalryman needed more than one It is also one of the reasons why formation of WH lost their effectivness
Interesting sentence: "...After all, now it was the common people, not the nobility, that fought in the wars. With the rich nobility no longer participating in battles, the demand for expensive, high-quality armor dissapeard..." Short after that moment, rulers with big armies equiped with rifles understood, that they dont need nobility, so they dissapear too.
I think it's worth mentioning that we are not sure if winged hussars actually had wings in real battles. It might have been just for ceremonies / parades. Many polish historians (most of them nowadays) believe that they didn't carry wings in battle. But the myth is too strong by now.
I agree with you, even though movies and modern paintings depict them with wings, I have not found a depiction in 16-17th century paintings where they had wings in battle🤔 However, many sources state that hussars with wings took part in battle. It's hard to find the truth here🤷♂️
But with certainty we can say that Polish hussars definitely wore wings, perhaps they just took them off and hung them on the horse at the beginning of the battle.
@@call_of_history This assumption makes no sense. For once, horses do not offer enough real estate to hand those big wings anywhere off of them in a sensible manner. If you hung them left and right off the saddle, they would be even more unwieldy than simply keeping them. They would have had to drop them right before charging to not be a hindrance.
I would love to see what something like full plate armor, or samurai armor would be like if we made it today with the most advanced materials and techniques possible.
Yeah, I'm sorry. We just wanted to simplify the terminology for those who are not so familiar with guns, so that they could understand everything easily.
After the Seven Kingdoms fought for hegemony, Qin's armor was theoretically the most advanced, and the nomadic people were driven out by Qin, and the indigenous people in the south were also invaded by Qin. Polish armor appeared thousands of years after the fall of the Qin Dynasty.
This suggests that ancient and medieval China should have had well-armed and large elite armies, as recorded in history, such as the Black armored cavalry, the special forces of the Tang emperor, which defeated 100,000 troops. In this battle the emperor Li Shimin was struck by an arrow and his horse was shot to death, riddled with arrows but his armor protected his life.
I'm not very good at checking sources for historical accuracy, so I'd like to ask someone in the comments: how accurate is the claim in this video, that armor was phased out due to kings not caring about their soldiers surviving as they were just peasants? It feels inaccurate to me, since if armor was straight up better than no armor, then armies fielded with armor would've defeated armies of kings who skimp on funds, and armor would've remained in use. I'm not saying absolute monarchs cared about soldiers, I'm just saying there must've been another reason that this video ommited.
If you simplify it a bit, the main reason is that the average medieval soldier was often either a mercenary or a feudal lord, and he based himself with armor, because he did not want to die, it is logical. But the soldiers of the 17-18th century were not mercenaries, and were simple recruits, which were recruited because of military duty. Often such people did not have the means for armour, they used what the government gave them. This is the main reason, but of course there are many others that became the starting point for such a strong change in military strategy.
Thunder produced by wings? That's a nice joke. Noise was made by banners attached to end of lances. Have you ever heard noise made by flags in the wind? About 10 per cent of winged hussars used wings in the battle but each one of them had red-white banner. A very long banner. Wings attached to the back of the hussar were used in the 18th century, for the ceremoniał purposes, for example during funerals.
Thanks for the info, unfortunately I didn't find such a thing when I was writing this script for this video. The source said that it was the wings that made the noise:)
@@call_of_history it is a common legend. Someone decided to be a myth buster and did an experiment. Enemies of Poland saw waving red-white wall before sudden death. Banners were up to 5 meters long, splited in two and during attack were waving like wings and they were very noisy. Besides in Poland nobody called them "winged" only just hussars.
I'd like to point out and I mean no disrespect but look at some samurai armor from the segoku jidai later pieces have resolved the issues you mentioned about the oyoroi
Actually present polish historians concluded that wings of the winged hussars which were used in battle, weren't actually part of their armor, but an attachment to the back of the horse. No problem with the video, this myth existed in even polish mainstream historian media 15 years ago and no wonder it survived beyond Poland.
Once given opportunity pieces of European plate armour started to be added to some samurai's armour. Apparently, especially breastplates. They also quickly picked up guns. Firearms already being used in Japan since centuries back those where primitive things unlike the European arquebuses. They soon developed their own versions of these.
Melee is still very effective on the battlefield in the hands of those who are actually good at it and closing the distance. Of course, those who have the range advantage are going to try to avoid allowing it by doing things like being up on a roof, and paying the most attention to anyone who manages to get near 21 feet. But there will be a rise in melee considering people are pushing to make it so they can have guns but their enemies can't. Even so melee really only does the job well if you first soften up your enemy by using up your ammo in range so they can't provide a effective counter to a close in.
No armour is truly better than another, simply because armours (and weapons) were adapted to the environment they were used in, so a piece of kit that is good in all environments simply does not exist
Not really. Try to put an Italian Milanese or a German Gothic full plate armor (best armor ever did in Medieval times) upon a Samurai and he will be capable pretty alone to defeat all his counterpart in Japanese armor. Simply cause European armors was thinked to offer protection from everything, blunt, slice, piercing hits and even aquabus shots. On contrary the Samurai armors was thinked for a certain type of protection (slicing, piercing). A Samurai in full plate armor with a mace in his hand will be so tanky that will be almost impossible for other Samurai to defeat him. Where it will be far easy do the opposite. Conclusion: there's armor that have a so large damage protection scale that they will actually do a difference in any field and battle.
@@solinvictus1234 Real life it is not a video game and you clearly have no idea how much Japanese armor can protect I am fraid. I can suggest you to read up some books on it: 図解甲冑と武器 日本甲冑大図鑑 縮刷版 日本甲冑図鑑 by 三浦 一郎
@@lucanic4328 It's me that have to tell you "real life isn't a videogame" if you believe that a Japanese bamboo armor can be better in protection than a full hardened plate Milanese or Gothic armor. You clearly live in disillusion.
I mean seriously no one ask you guys to take interest in Japanese armors but do not spread misconceptions on it. At the Japanese armor society we do not go around saying European armors was 50 kg and that they needed cranes to get on horses. But I still have to read about bamboo armors hahaha it is pathetic
Although I really like Japanese armor, I think it is very evident that European armor was much more effective, superior and protective. Even Japanese helmets, no matter how striking they may look, were ineffective in combat, for some reason in many warrior cultures around the world they did not use unnecessary accessories on helmets such as horns and preferred to use them exclusively for rituals or ceremonies.
the best cavalry were the Zagonczyks. when it comes to moving surprise and bravery. no one who met them while marching or working had the right to survive.different weapons, but sharp discipline and the fact that they were the best horsemen made them elusive units that destroyed the enemy's country. There was no need to win a decisive battle if the enemy had no food..
Shit, here we go again... Okay, long story short. Hussars did not wear large wooden wings on the back of their armours. That is a myth and the rare examples of armours having such wings are usually later additions usually made in the XIX century or later. Hussars used wings of many other different forms which ranged from a single wooden wing attached either to the back or a side of a saddle to wings attached to helmets. Such wings produced next to no sound and even if they did they wouldn't be heard on a noisy Early Modern battlefield. It was the sight of those wings that usually frightened horses.
Don't get me started on hussars. If You are posting something make sure it is historically acurate please. Hussars DID NOT put huge wings on their backs. Sometines there was a small single one mounted on the saddle. The leopard pelt was used not only for the looks but mostly for protection as for they did'nt use any armor on the back. The reason for each ane every part of hussars equipment was it's usability ant it was evolving for over 200 years. The armors that are presented are mostly the parade ones. Last thng, the reason enemies of polish hussars were terrified of them was realization athat they are facing experienced, well equipuet and trained alite that will obliterate them in one (or two) attack.
Samurai armour was far weaker compared with high and late medieval full armour. Apart from a more inclusive design, the steel was better quality in Europe and chainmail in Japan was butted instead of solid and riveted as in Europe and other parts of Asia.
During the Imjin Wars, the Japanese weak armor started to show. The Chinese had probably the world's most advanced metallurgy at the time with their armor even resisting Portuguese rifles.
Anyone else a bit gutted they were not some 2nd century BC Chinese Emperor with some badass armour, weapons and a cool as fuck palace. We missed some cool shit
😂😂😂 they did have plate armor, too. It was first imported from the Spanish before they made their own. As to why you dont see them as much is because biases and 200 years of consecutive peace.
actually the one thing you mentioned about one of hussars i bellive that one hussar you talked about was the lithuanian (easy if someone doesnt know hussars were from poland and lithuanian commonwealth and sometimes hungarian as well) one and actually its a mystery and there is no proof that actually happened it might have been just a tale to keep morale high.
You are very ignorant of many facts and as a result you present some things in very odd way. For egsample, you failed to mention possibly the biggest reason why Polish Hussars wore wings. It helped against steppe raiders trying to laso them and pull them down from horses. The wood contraption of wings helped for them not to be tightly wrapped by rope or bolaso. Europeans did coloured even their armours, check some crusaders manuscripts, painted helmets at cetera. Several centuries before Japan even figured out how proper armor looks like. Yeah indeed, Asia was really far behind in this matter. Even before Japanese came with lamellar armour, Europeans were not wearing just chain-mail, but coats of plates, brigandines, half plated and later full plate armours. And also, Europeans wore padded armour underneath their armour, which is something rest of the world didnt do that much. You should really check your datations. Japanese armour, in 12th century wasnt in no way the armour you describe as beeing superior. You are also failing to mention another iportant facts, like why Europeans used full mail armour, as lamellar and scalle was known to them since Roman era. Ever heard of Cataphractoi and so on? You really should make claims you do without much deeper explination. It loos very bulvar like. But all in all video wasnt that bad. Europeans also had horned helmets and psychological stuff used, but mostly decorative, as far as since 12th century. Do you know what the most popular armour in Japan was, when they met European traders? Nanban do Gusoku. Portugesse cuirasses and Morions decorated with Japanese lamellar elements. I think you try to absorb too many things in very short video and make conclusions, hardly on high school level.
You are very ignorant and as a result, you claim very odd things and fail to realise you made a full of yourself. 🙃 The whole "wings were a protection from lassos" theory was discarded by most historians decades ago. Primarily because it has no basis in primary sources but also because this theory makes no sense. How do you propose you would use a lasso against cavalry that normally uses very long lance in a very tight formation? How would you even close a distance in order to throw that lasso?
First pp who used steel or iron was turkic kurganist ppl they started the blacksmith revolution and it traveled to europe and to romans turks didnt crafted heavy armor bc they wanted to be light horseback archers but they had heavy cavalary shock troops but they were only officialy used when they had khanates they would mainly use light horseback archers the turks cared alot about swords they made them with love and passion swords was a almost a holy object not bc it was hard to make or lack of iron it was a culture to adore swords and first cavarly swords were made also by turks and did yall know that pants were also invented by ancient turks while others still walked with rocks😂
Samurai armor was actually more movable than the European knights. Samurai warrior can actually fall on his back and get up much faster than the European knights. Ancient man wasn't stupid, they were actually very extremely smart and intelligent to make sure he frightened his own enemies. When he puts on his animal armor and helmet he thinks he's actually just like that animal.
The hussar's lance was attached to the horse through the use of a "tok" rather than held under the arm by the rider, so all energy was transferred to the enemy through the full weight of the rider and horse. This is not often depicted in visualizations and screenings in movies, and was cruelly effective against infantry (piercing several infantrymen).
And it was hollow inside to splinter upon contact to prevent throwing the rider off the saddle. Also, it was the King's prerogative to provide these lances to hussars, so on each battle the King provided wagons of these lances as hussars attack multiple times in succession.
Also author didn't check husar armor correctly, because animal furs had additional role and it was to hide less armored back. Hussars compared to other heavy cavalry could fight both as riders and as footmen, because of their very innovative armor, and that was its "folding" design and less, even in some cases non-armored back to lessen Hussar weight and provide as much protection as possible to the front.
@@jackswiatek5221 Lance is full not hollow inside. If they are hollow break up like copy. How they can withstand charge on enemy and have power to pierce if they are hollow?
@@piowers Are you Polish? I can send you links to specific books which explains it.
If you are not Polish, here is a google translation of small part of a book about Hussars written by Dr. Radosław Sikora, a Polish historian specializing in these matters.
"Dr. Radosław Sikora, historian of modern military affairs, author of such books as "The Phenomenon of Hussars", "Unusual Battles and Charges of Hussars", and "Hussars. "The pride of Polish weapons" explains in an interview with "Wprost" why the hussar lance was such a unique weapon.
- Mainly because of its length, which made it possible to knock down the opponent before his weapon hit the hussar or his horse. The hussar lance differed from the medieval one in that it was hollowed out in the middle, which allowed it to be significantly extended, the historian emphasizes."
@@piowers Using such a long spear significantly increased the load on the hussar's arm. To make the bending moment, or, to put it simply, the forces acting on the arm of a person holding a long lance, smaller, the hussars began to use special tracks, i.e. leather sleeves hanging on a belt attached to the saddle, into which the back of the lance was placed.
- Leaving the tip of the copy in progress allows you to wield a much longer weapon, but there is one downside. When the hussar tilted his lance while charging, the vibrations of the horse were transferred to the weapon itself. This made aiming very difficult. It takes a lot of training to use a copy efficiently in this way, says Dr. Sikora, who is also privately involved in historical reconstruction.
Additionally, by leaving the lance in progress during the impact, the force of the attack did not directly hit the hussar's arm, but was also transferred to the saddle.
Pelts on Hussars backs were not meant to intimidate opponents but both to act as a showoff of status (most expensive were leopard pelts and less expensive these of wolves), and believe it or not but these pelts also served as a protection against arrows.
Lances were hollow inside to splinter upon contact to prevent throwing the rider off the saddle. Also, it was the King's prerogative to provide these lances to hussars, so on each battle the King provided wagons of these lances as hussars attacked multiple times... even up to 12 times in succession.
I wished someone provided the battle tactics of hussars as their mastery in horse riding and the way these horses were trained is exceptional. Hussars would not be the same without their horses and a trained horse was worth back then the price of a village.
As people here mentioned, polish hussars wings wasnt the cause of whistle - it was 2 m flags on the ends of the lances that was scaring enemy horses. The wings was only for status image and were mostly not 2 but 1 attached to horse saddle. Also they were provided by king (manufactured only in Kraków and Wilno) and it was forbiden to trade it abroad (under death penalty, like hussar horses).
PS. Bechter wasnt polish invention but crimean tatar or muscovites.
The hussar wings concealed the number and formation of the unit before the battle. this way the opponent did not know on which wing there were more warriors. This gave an advantage because the stronger wing of teh unit was reforming and it was possible to attack simultaneously from the front and from the side.
The second advantage of wings is the concealment of charges in a loose formation. The musketeers aimed at the Hussar figure that looked larger and therefore fired too early, which was less effective. Then the first and second ranks changed formation into a tight formation, which increased the force of the charging unit attack.
@@PR_nick The main role of the hussar wings was to protect against the arcana used by the Turks and Tatars. Therefore, wings were curved to protect the head
@@ruffnecky3 myth and myth not true
Polish hussar the Best !😊
Polish-Lithuanian to be precise.
They suck in Age of Empires though........ based on this docu they should be equal to the paladin.
cause they weren't Polish fraction in original AEO, (dunno about addons), so they werent polish winged hussars, maybe balkan, or Osmans..?:)
@@shadow_crne1030 YES! Polish hussars are joke in AoE2
@@bostonskiherbaciarz True.
proud of Polish roots
And the Wing Hussars Arrived, coming down the mountain ⛰ side
Coming down they turned the tide
"Armor was gifted to british museum" made my day:)
Worth to mention that wings on winged hussars armor also were for: protecting from nets which Tatars use to take down horseman also for ceremony and for scare enemy horses which wasnt trained for that kind of noise.
Primo, Tatars used arkans which is their term for lasso, not nets. Secundo, hussar armours don't have any wings. Those that do are XIX-century fabrications.
No surviving armour from the period has any wings attached to them. There is also almost no depiction of hussar armour having wings in iconography.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 Due to a regiment's rulebook of one of Malopolska's armored cavalry regiments written in late XVI century, wings were worn either on hussar's back or hussar's saddle and their main purpouse was to intimidate enemy, not to scare enemy's horses.
Do you say that the nobleman writing that rulebook for his regiment was a liar and those wings he describes were invented by fantasy writers 300 years later?
@@Northerner-NotADoctor Pfft. Then cite this "rulebook". Keep in mind that I wrote that there is no evidence of attaching wings to armor (aside from winged helmets). Not that wigs were never used.
Of course they were, there is a ton of evidence from iconography and written sources for that. But not a single mention od depiction of huge s-shaped wings attached to the hussar's armor backplate.
The closest thing we got is the depiction of anatomical wings in the painting Battle of Vienna by Martino Altomonte.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 There are original armors and saddles of both types (in museums, available to watch). There were armors with wings attached to it, not only saddles. Paintings from XVIc and remaining artifacts show it clearly. Although I've never seen white wings. They were usually dark in the paintings from the epoch.
If you want to find that Regulamin (rulebook) then just use google. I easily found it and anyone interested in the subject should also have no problems on it. Maybe I was mistaken and it was written in XVIIc, not in XVIc.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 primo they used somethines but one wing connected to saddle...Two wings was for ceremonial usages. And they use nets you must soak into history a bit more.
It is said that the wings on Hussars were also ment as a protection against “bolos” resp. “lassos” used esp. by Tatars which served in Turkish troops as light cavalry.
The take on samurai armor is pretty strange. Yes, the main situation for samurai until around 1300 was as a mounted archer but over time, samurai tended to become foot soldiers using a yari (pike). While archers continued to exist, it was rare for them to be mounted during the sengoku period (warring states era 1477 to 1600) and the type of armor changed.
Yes, you're right, we should have said later samurai armor. We will definitely talk about that in the next armor video:)
@@call_of_history ale i think you underestimate european armor flexibility, i have no problem somersaulting or using bow in mine and mine isnt even of high quality. and it virtually immune to arrows. altho i dont exactly know the strenght of japanesee bows, they re strang xd
@@call_of_history There are some other inaccuracies in this video. The image of the Chu Kingdom rhino hide armor is actually an image of the Han Dynasty's iron/steel lamellar armor. There are actually images/recreations/fragments of Chu Kingdom hide armor and it does not look like that. Furthermore, the stone armor is not for the Chinese emperor and was not actually found in his tomb. It is generic armor for a soldier of the Qin emperor, and was found in a warehouse/pit outside of the emperor's tomb in the general burial complex that is several square miles/square kilometers in area. That type of armor is seen on thousands of Qin terra cotta soldiers. The actual tomb of the Qin emperor has never been opened so nobody knows what is inside or what his armor looked like.
The yari is a generic word for spear that could range from a short 4 foot spear to a very long 20 foot spear (pike). By the Sengoku era, Samurai did indeed serve as footsoldiers as well. However, many Samurai served as heavy cavalry by using the yari or other polearms on horseback. While horse archery was no longer their most common or primary role, some Samurai could pull double duty by using both a bow and a yari/other polearm while on horseback.
@Thalaranthey Full plate armor (invented in the late 14th century) is basically invunerable to arrows except for a few small gaps/weak points. Chainmail was more resistant to some types of broader arrows from weaker bows or arrows from longer distances, but narrower arrows from stronger bows at shorter ranges will punch right through chainmail. The Japanese warbows of the feudal period could reach strong draw weights. The Ming and Qing Dynasties were using bows typically around 70-170 lbs in draw weight (with some rare outliners in the 200s lbs range) and the Song Dynasty wrote they required upper tier elite archers to shoot a minimum of 160s lb draw weight bows. IIRC, one of these dynasties had a record that said some Japanese warriors used heavy draw weight bows that could shoot a heavy arrow through a ceramic roof tile.
Polish hussars are amazing
In fact, several sets of rhino skin armor were unearthed from Marquis Yi of Zeng. It is said that rhino skin armor is made by attaching layers of rhino skin to a wooden bases, and then applying a hardened layer of Chinese lacquer, often mixed with porcelain chips to enhance protection. The wooden bases and rhino skin of the armor in tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng have rotted away, leaving only hardened layers.
The winged hussars also haven't lost a single battle in over 100 years from 1524 to 1625. During most of the battles they were heavily outnumbered like in the battle of Kircholm (3500 winged hussars vs 11000 Swedish troops) or battle of uh... It was somewhere in Russia where they were outnumbered 10 to 1 and still won. Historians are saying the Hussars had to charge even 10 times in a row that day.
Khotyn, meanted in video
Pod Hodowem, misiu ! Polskie Termopile . A pod Kircholmem nie było tylu huzarzy
Thanks for making this video! As you said the knights armor and the samurais were created for different type of warfare and each of them is perfect for their own environment.
8:04 Polish hussars have humble origins. Initially they were Hungarian mercenaries. This has changed when king Stefan Batory reorganised hussars.
Also long lance was hollow inside to reduce weight. It was suppose to shatter on impact. Think about it as a dum-dum bullet. Hussars were expending many lances during one battle.
ale ty mundry
Polish wing hassar:
Extra thiiiiiicc!!!
Hussars - werry rich man. Special types of horses, special types of armor, lance, 2 pistols, 1-2 warhammers, sabre.
Noise was made by charging horses and flag on lance.
They attacked, move back, change horses and weapons and charge again.
and again....
and again....
Great, detailed video. Keep it up!
4:05 "gifted" lol
maaan you deserve waay more subs and I really mean it, hope you blow up and are able to do even more videos one day.
The pike was a long weapon, varying considerably in size, from 3 to 7 m
Polish Hussars had wing on their backs to protect them from Tatars when they were running away from them.
The video talks about the medieval pike, which was shorter than a hussar's lance. In the Modern era, pike became longer and could reach up to 7 meters🙂
To jest tylko przypuszczenie, zresztą bardzo nietrafne, jak ciężka kawaleri amogła uciec lekkiej ?@@SirTim-uh8ox
The trick is that pikemans had to set thier pikes on angle about 30-45 degres, riders usually put their lances straight to enemy, so effectively pikes has shorter range than lance
On the battlefield they never had these s shaped "wings" on their back. They used them later in history in ceremonial occasions when this formation was out of use. In historical paintings they depicted (not all of them) having something like one strip with feathers mounted to saddle, so the actual noise while charging mentioned in this video was probably from the long pennants on lances fluttering at a gallop speed
Also it is very likely that those famous wings of hussars were those pennants. Pennants were splited into two long stripes and while hussars was raiding in full gallop and you stood in front of them and look at their charge, you probably would see long stripes going up and down like if horses have real wings. Must be incredible view, probably your last one, but still incredible ;)
Yes Polish hussars never used their wings while riding. All these churches are usually 18th-19th century fakes. Hussars used wings only in one period, when they were used for funerals or parades, i.e. the 18th century.
@@burkosalwco ty pierdolisz, człowieku? W kronikach i opisach bitew masz napisane jak to wygladało
@@tiotiti9893 Tych pisanych 100 czy 200 lat po bitwie? Ty wiesz o czym piszesz poczytaj trochę opracowań historyków
Samuai armor went through various iterations as did european armor. What you showed was late 10th to early 11th century. Once samurai started adopting muskets under oda nobunaga they began adopting a wedge shape in the armor for deflecting musket rounds.
You never mentioned the full body Armor the Romans used on cavalrymen. The helmet video would be nice to watch.
Great idea, in the next armor video we will definitely add Roman cavalrymen armor:)
Wings on "winged hussars" was attached to saddle, not back of armor. Most it was 1 wing, not 2. Most of this armor in museum, are replicas....(myth about wing attached to armor is from 19 century paintings)....yea, im from Poland :)
So cool program . Thanks
The image of the Chu Kingdom rhino hide armor is actually an image of the Han Dynasty's iron/steel lamellar armor. There are actually images/recreations/fragments of Chu Kingdom hide armor and it does not look like that. Furthermore, the stone armor is not for the Chinese emperor and was not actually found in his tomb. It is generic armor for a soldier of the Qin emperor, and was found in a warehouse/pit outside of the emperor's tomb in the general burial complex that is several square miles/square kilometers in area. That type of armor is seen on thousands of Qin terra cotta soldiers. The actual tomb of the Qin emperor has never been opened so nobody knows what is inside or what his armor looked like.
Why only rich nobility could be Winged Hussars?
It is mainly connected with prices of horses and for every campaign every cavalryman needed more than one
It is also one of the reasons why formation of WH lost their effectivness
you are right, one hussar horse was equivalent to three villages.
The minimum cost of equipping one hussar is the equivalent of 17.5 kg of silver.
Interesting sentence: "...After all, now it was the common people, not the nobility, that fought in the wars. With the rich nobility no longer participating in battles, the demand for expensive, high-quality armor dissapeard..." Short after that moment, rulers with big armies equiped with rifles understood, that they dont need nobility, so they dissapear too.
I think it's worth mentioning that we are not sure if winged hussars actually had wings in real battles. It might have been just for ceremonies / parades. Many polish historians (most of them nowadays) believe that they didn't carry wings in battle.
But the myth is too strong by now.
I agree with you, even though movies and modern paintings depict them with wings, I have not found a depiction in 16-17th century paintings where they had wings in battle🤔 However, many sources state that hussars with wings took part in battle. It's hard to find the truth here🤷♂️
But with certainty we can say that Polish hussars definitely wore wings, perhaps they just took them off and hung them on the horse at the beginning of the battle.
Some of them had wings in battle as psychological tactic
@@whiteeye3453 and you know it from...?
@@call_of_history This assumption makes no sense. For once, horses do not offer enough real estate to hand those big wings anywhere off of them in a sensible manner. If you hung them left and right off the saddle, they would be even more unwieldy than simply keeping them. They would have had to drop them right before charging to not be a hindrance.
I would love to see what something like full plate armor, or samurai armor would be like if we made it today with the most advanced materials and techniques possible.
Hussars used two wings only in ceremonies. In battle one wing is enough to made noise that scares enemy's horses unadapted to this kind of sound
I watched you since the beginning of youre channel thought u had 1m subs by now but keep going
Thank you 😊
great video please make a video on best ancient armors
Good idea 👍 Thank you 😊
thanks for your great job@@call_of_history
Yes I would like to see a video about the helmets
Soon😉
Muskets and rifles are very different. up until the middle of the 19th century muskets were used they weren't called riflemen !
Yeah, I'm sorry. We just wanted to simplify the terminology for those who are not so familiar with guns, so that they could understand everything easily.
After the Seven Kingdoms fought for hegemony, Qin's armor was theoretically the most advanced, and the nomadic people were driven out by Qin, and the indigenous people in the south were also invaded by Qin. Polish armor appeared thousands of years after the fall of the Qin Dynasty.
the best weapon is quantity
This suggests that ancient and medieval China should have had well-armed and large elite armies, as recorded in history, such as the Black armored cavalry, the special forces of the Tang emperor, which defeated 100,000 troops.
In this battle the emperor Li Shimin was struck by an arrow and his horse was shot to death, riddled with arrows but his armor protected his life.
Make a video about ancient cities
Once again showing the big man doesn't really care that much for the little man.
you forget one great armor , scythians Turkic golden armor
The Chinese one is not an armour but a Jade eternity suit as they believed that Jade had powerful curative effects etc...
Worth to mention the hussra thatpirced 6 russians was from Lithuana - they were equal member of the commonwelth! Cheers from Poland!
I'm not very good at checking sources for historical accuracy, so I'd like to ask someone in the comments: how accurate is the claim in this video, that armor was phased out due to kings not caring about their soldiers surviving as they were just peasants?
It feels inaccurate to me, since if armor was straight up better than no armor, then armies fielded with armor would've defeated armies of kings who skimp on funds, and armor would've remained in use. I'm not saying absolute monarchs cared about soldiers, I'm just saying there must've been another reason that this video ommited.
If you simplify it a bit, the main reason is that the average medieval soldier was often either a mercenary or a feudal lord, and he based himself with armor, because he did not want to die, it is logical. But the soldiers of the 17-18th century were not mercenaries, and were simple recruits, which were recruited because of military duty. Often such people did not have the means for armour, they used what the government gave them. This is the main reason, but of course there are many others that became the starting point for such a strong change in military strategy.
Adequate protection needed, maybe different in the future..
I bet they had to pay Bethesda for that Chinese horse armor 🤣
Anything that can protect you from fatal slashes punctures or anything else that’s life threatening is superior
Thunder produced by wings? That's a nice joke. Noise was made by banners attached to end of lances. Have you ever heard noise made by flags in the wind? About 10 per cent of winged hussars used wings in the battle but each one of them had red-white banner. A very long banner. Wings attached to the back of the hussar were used in the 18th century, for the ceremoniał purposes, for example during funerals.
Thanks for the info, unfortunately I didn't find such a thing when I was writing this script for this video. The source said that it was the wings that made the noise:)
@@call_of_history it is a common legend. Someone decided to be a myth buster and did an experiment. Enemies of Poland saw waving red-white wall before sudden death. Banners were up to 5 meters long, splited in two and during attack were waving like wings and they were very noisy. Besides in Poland nobody called them "winged" only just hussars.
I'd like to point out and I mean no disrespect but look at some samurai armor from the segoku jidai later pieces have resolved the issues you mentioned about the oyoroi
Yes, you're right, we should have said later samurai armor. We will definitely talk about that in the next armor video:)
@@call_of_history sweet looking forward to that
Actually present polish historians concluded that wings of the winged hussars which were used in battle, weren't actually part of their armor, but an attachment to the back of the horse. No problem with the video, this myth existed in even polish mainstream historian media 15 years ago and no wonder it survived beyond Poland.
Once given opportunity pieces of European plate armour started to be added to some samurai's armour. Apparently, especially breastplates. They also quickly picked up guns. Firearms already being used in Japan since centuries back those where primitive things unlike the European arquebuses. They soon developed their own versions of these.
i want to see the helmet video
Melee is still very effective on the battlefield in the hands of those who are actually good at it and closing the distance. Of course, those who have the range advantage are going to try to avoid allowing it by doing things like being up on a roof, and paying the most attention to anyone who manages to get near 21 feet.
But there will be a rise in melee considering people are pushing to make it so they can have guns but their enemies can't.
Even so melee really only does the job well if you first soften up your enemy by using up your ammo in range so they can't provide a effective counter to a close in.
Jpnenese helmet look colll
No armour is truly better than another, simply because armours (and weapons) were adapted to the environment they were used in, so a piece of kit that is good in all environments simply does not exist
Not really. Try to put an Italian Milanese or a German Gothic full plate armor (best armor ever did in Medieval times) upon a Samurai and he will be capable pretty alone to defeat all his counterpart in Japanese armor. Simply cause European armors was thinked to offer protection from everything, blunt, slice, piercing hits and even aquabus shots. On contrary the Samurai armors was thinked for a certain type of protection (slicing, piercing).
A Samurai in full plate armor with a mace in his hand will be so tanky that will be almost impossible for other Samurai to defeat him. Where it will be far easy do the opposite.
Conclusion: there's armor that have a so large damage protection scale that they will actually do a difference in any field and battle.
@@solinvictus1234 Real life it is not a video game and you clearly have no idea how much Japanese armor can protect I am fraid.
I can suggest you to read up some books on it:
図解甲冑と武器
日本甲冑大図鑑 縮刷版
日本甲冑図鑑 by 三浦 一郎
@@lucanic4328 It's me that have to tell you "real life isn't a videogame" if you believe that a Japanese bamboo armor can be better in protection than a full hardened plate Milanese or Gothic armor.
You clearly live in disillusion.
@@solinvictus1234 bambo armor, here we go. At least I provided sources
I mean seriously no one ask you guys to take interest in Japanese armors but do not spread misconceptions on it. At the Japanese armor society we do not go around saying European armors was 50 kg and that they needed cranes to get on horses. But I still have to read about bamboo armors hahaha it is pathetic
You should cover Rajput armors
The peasant soldiers were not given rifles, but muskets or matchlocks. Rifles came centuries later...during the Civil War.
Although I really like Japanese armor, I think it is very evident that European armor was much more effective, superior and protective. Even Japanese helmets, no matter how striking they may look, were ineffective in combat, for some reason in many warrior cultures around the world they did not use unnecessary accessories on helmets such as horns and preferred to use them exclusively for rituals or ceremonies.
the best cavalry were the Zagonczyks. when it comes to moving surprise and bravery. no one who met them while marching or working had the right to survive.different weapons, but sharp discipline and the fact that they were the best horsemen made them elusive units that destroyed the enemy's country. There was no need to win a decisive battle if the enemy had no food..
i like how back in the days rich people actually served a purpose, instead of balancing poverty
Skallagrim got some vids about weird helmets
Shit, here we go again... Okay, long story short. Hussars did not wear large wooden wings on the back of their armours. That is a myth and the rare examples of armours having such wings are usually later additions usually made in the XIX century or later.
Hussars used wings of many other different forms which ranged from a single wooden wing attached either to the back or a side of a saddle to wings attached to helmets.
Such wings produced next to no sound and even if they did they wouldn't be heard on a noisy Early Modern battlefield. It was the sight of those wings that usually frightened horses.
dziękuję, sam miałem to pisać
Knights; Samurai have hood armor, but Knights are in another league
second.
keep up these armor videos there sick.
If there are a lot of comments in support of the incredible helmets theme, this video won't be long in coming😉
Don't get me started on hussars. If You are posting something make sure it is historically acurate please. Hussars DID NOT put huge wings on their backs. Sometines there was a small single one mounted on the saddle. The leopard pelt was used not only for the looks but mostly for protection as for they did'nt use any armor on the back. The reason for each ane every part of hussars equipment was it's usability ant it was evolving for over 200 years. The armors that are presented are mostly the parade ones. Last thng, the reason enemies of polish hussars were terrified of them was realization athat they are facing experienced, well equipuet and trained alite that will obliterate them in one (or two) attack.
Samurai armour was far weaker compared with high and late medieval full armour. Apart from a more inclusive design, the steel was better quality in Europe and chainmail in Japan was butted instead of solid and riveted as in Europe and other parts of Asia.
During the Imjin Wars, the Japanese weak armor started to show. The Chinese had probably the world's most advanced metallurgy at the time with their armor even resisting Portuguese rifles.
Anyone else a bit gutted they were not some 2nd century BC Chinese Emperor with some badass armour, weapons and a cool as fuck palace. We missed some cool shit
"Cavaliers?"
Where are Arab armor how latrely are one of the most badass armor in history
Please review Chinese armors
Did they gift the armor or stole it
fun fact winged hussars was heavy cavalry of poland-lithuania, not just poland
Husaria to byli tylko Polacy , dokładnie tylko szlachta .
Litwini nie mieli ciężkiej jazdy
you all wrong about Poland
I really miss chineese paper armour
Plate armor is way better than Japanese one
😂😂😂 they did have plate armor, too. It was first imported from the Spanish before they made their own. As to why you dont see them as much is because biases and 200 years of consecutive peace.
It's pronounced hoozars not husars
Mongolian armor is best one. because it's strong, flexible, and cheap
In the next armor video we'll tell you about them:)
@@call_of_history thank you and I will subscribe if you make next video about Mongolian armor ❤
4:00 j do not think it was ,,gifted" to british museum
I voted for the Samurai 👍
Me too
7:53 russian shish kebab
😂😂😂
7:50 makes Vlad the Impeler looks amateur..
The way you pronounce Cuirass and Lacquer makes my uterus hurt
okładka mi się bardzo podoba :)
HUSARIA !!!!!
actually the one thing you mentioned about one of hussars i bellive that one hussar you talked about was the lithuanian (easy if someone doesnt know hussars were from poland and lithuanian commonwealth and sometimes hungarian as well) one and actually its a mystery and there is no proof that actually happened it might have been just a tale to keep morale high.
You are very ignorant of many facts and as a result you present some things in very odd way. For egsample, you failed to mention possibly the biggest reason why Polish Hussars wore wings. It helped against steppe raiders trying to laso them and pull them down from horses. The wood contraption of wings helped for them not to be tightly wrapped by rope or bolaso. Europeans did coloured even their armours, check some crusaders manuscripts, painted helmets at cetera. Several centuries before Japan even figured out how proper armor looks like. Yeah indeed, Asia was really far behind in this matter. Even before Japanese came with lamellar armour, Europeans were not wearing just chain-mail, but coats of plates, brigandines, half plated and later full plate armours. And also, Europeans wore padded armour underneath their armour, which is something rest of the world didnt do that much. You should really check your datations. Japanese armour, in 12th century wasnt in no way the armour you describe as beeing superior. You are also failing to mention another iportant facts, like why Europeans used full mail armour, as lamellar and scalle was known to them since Roman era. Ever heard of Cataphractoi and so on? You really should make claims you do without much deeper explination. It loos very bulvar like. But all in all video wasnt that bad. Europeans also had horned helmets and psychological stuff used, but mostly decorative, as far as since 12th century. Do you know what the most popular armour in Japan was, when they met European traders? Nanban do Gusoku. Portugesse cuirasses and Morions decorated with Japanese lamellar elements. I think you try to absorb too many things in very short video and make conclusions, hardly on high school level.
You are very ignorant and as a result, you claim very odd things and fail to realise you made a full of yourself. 🙃
The whole "wings were a protection from lassos" theory was discarded by most historians decades ago. Primarily because it has no basis in primary sources but also because this theory makes no sense. How do you propose you would use a lasso against cavalry that normally uses very long lance in a very tight formation? How would you even close a distance in order to throw that lasso?
Better for what?
And Katana also could cut a tank in half ;)
Polish WINGED HUSARS
The best in The World
Husaria górą!!!
First pp who used steel or iron was turkic kurganist ppl they started the blacksmith revolution and it traveled to europe and to romans turks didnt crafted heavy armor bc they wanted to be light horseback archers but they had heavy cavalary shock troops but they were only officialy used when they had khanates they would mainly use light horseback archers the turks cared alot about swords they made them with love and passion swords was a almost a holy object not bc it was hard to make or lack of iron it was a culture to adore swords and first cavarly swords were made also by turks and did yall know that pants were also invented by ancient turks while others still walked with rocks😂
Gifted to British museum. what a joke 😅
Keep nobles away from fighting, it isnt so easy German nobles where still very important in both world wars often as Officer or higher ranks!
Parthians ans sassanids?
first
and i love your vids
Thank you☺️
EU armor > Asian style armor hands down
Knights were idiots or precise they were middle age mercenary groups
Samurai armor was actually more movable than the European knights. Samurai warrior can actually fall on his back and get up much faster than the European knights. Ancient man wasn't stupid, they were actually very extremely smart and intelligent to make sure he frightened his own enemies. When he puts on his animal armor and helmet he thinks he's actually just like that animal.
POLSKA TU JEST
ich konie były przyzwyczajone
Hussar wings were not used in battle, they were an image for parades