in WW2, the British army developed a type of cannon round for their tanks called High Explosive Squash Head(HESH), which upon impact squashes against enemy armor before detonating, transfering energy through a large surface and lethally shattering the armor on the other side without actually piercing a hole in it. Armor-piercing is an anti-armor method, but anti-armor does not always equal armor-piercing.
Yep, and that is also how the warhammers like the one on his Halberd works. You smash the personal armor so hard it buckles and pushes against the enemy's body, causing injury, incapacitation or even death.
And they still rely on it because rifled barrels kekw PS I'm aware they supposedly have smoothbores lying around in case of a peer conflict but for some reason they didn't replace them in those sent to ua
HESH ammunition was initially for busting bunkers. The way to blow up a wall is to bury explosives inside the wall, not to pierce through the wall. And yes, HESH turned out to be quite effective against tanks, due to the tank armor spalling on the inside. Which is why more modern tanks have spall liners.
One thing I also picked up from Tod's archery vs plate videos is that you can damage an armour's joints by hitting them hard (like elbow joints or any segmented bits that are riveted together), so that it gets harder for the wearer to stay flexible and continue fighting with their equipment.
There was one hit of an arrow around the shoulder/bicep area, which didn't penetrate but left a really deep dent in the armor. The guys said it meant that the armor did it's work, which is of course true, but I doubt that anyone could pick up and swing a weapon with that arm... Contusions in the major muscles are incredibly painful, I once had a guy land with his knee on my bicep in a judo match and I just couldn't use the arm for anything for a week, even holding the handlebars of my bike was painful...
It has parallels with attacking a main battle tank. If you fire at the frontal armour, it's going to be hard work but take out a single track and the 80 ton tank is disabled.
One thing that’s always puzzled me is the prevalence of a very specific type of image in medieval art: a two-handed downward cut with a sword that splits the top of the target’s helmet with blood pouring out of the split. It’s an image I’ve seen repeatedly across centuries, and while the action itself seems implausible to me, it also seems weird that a depiction of that specific attack being delivered in that specific way should recur so often over such a span of time if it never happened.
We also have to accept people will somewhat embellish their stories/art etc. Also imagine the skirmishes are quite hectic, the blood pouring out might not be from the head wound. Heck it might not even be their own blood.
And building on this, what is the worst quality helmet feasible for people to have used at the time. As modern poor quality steel/iron is quite different to medieval poor quality metal.
Well said, I think many of the comments are a case of taking the “ sword cuts are ineffective against armour” thing a bit too far. I think it’s easy for some folks to see the dao you are showing and assume that because it’s a sword it’s useless against a helmet but it still can hit just hard enough. There is a reason why full power sparring with greatswords is at best difficult to do safely. I would also argue a full power swing from a beefy saber from horseback at a gallop might threaten to hurt someone wearing a brass helmet like in the Napoleonic period. Perhaps a topic to explore in a future video!
At the end of the day what the armour does is reducing being hit with a piece of sharp steel to being hit with a piece of steel. Wouldn't really recommend it either way.
Definitely. I think, to the horse point, almost anything would produce an absolutely blistered wound. Even a "mundane" item like a baseball bat would probably cause massive trauma is one were to swing it from full gallop.
@@kounurasaka5590 Yeah it’s an easy thing to overlook especially because even most martial artists are not skilled horsemen or spend that much time around horses. This is something for Jason Kingsley to comment on as well I think. The fact horses amplify impact is also why axes, maces, and warhammers are popular on horseback. (As well as the presence of armour in situation where half-swording and grappling is impossible)
Keep in mind that the lamellar armor of the time period didn't always have full lamellar sleeves. The lamellar jacket would extend down from the shoulder to cover the upper arms and the gauntlets would extend up from the wrists, but I'm pretty sure many examples still had multiple inches of elbow that would be covered by lighter cloth (chainmail too?). That blade could absolutely lop an arm straight off if your enemy didn't have chainmail and if they did the impact could still damage the joint.
As a side note, I know that as early as the Han dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) and at least as late all the way to the end of the Liao dynasty (although the military text we have is from the Northern Song dynasty, but chronologically they overlap), they used trained specialized infantry with oversized swords, specifically to attack the horses of enemy cavalry. And I think you yourself made a video before on the Zhanmadao, a.k.a., horse behading sword. (Although texts suggest they attacked the leg of the horse.) There even was a double edged jian called a Zhanmajian. Anyway, since we have contemporary texts about using swords against horses, the moment you mentioned how this could kill a beast, my mind instantly made that connection. It wouldn't surprise me if this super-sharp and beefy thing was the Liao answer to the zhanmadao the other dynasties were using against them. I.e., not as much a general weapon for fighting in or against armour, but for those trained infantry specialists that counter horsemen. (And still are able to hold their own otherwise.) I mean, look at even the shape of the forward edge. One of the surviving examples of zhanmadao (plus some period drawings) has an edge that's straight for the most part and curves for the last third or so of the blade. This one has exactly that shape too. AND the socket on the front forms effectively a ricasso at the base, just like the Japanese zanbato version of the zhanmadao. This one is broader and has a usable tip, so it's not identical, but it's IMHO within the realm of plausible derivatives for the same purpose. Just as my own unqualified guess. I'm not formally trained as a historian, so I'm probably wrong.
@@efafe4972 Yeah. I mean, even from a pragmatic point of view, if you gave someone a lot of training for that role (and they need a LOT to stand against a charging mass of horsemen with a sword), they're relatively hard to replace. We're talking elite troops. You can't just conscript another thousand peasants. Definitely makes sense to put armour on them. I was more like wondering about Matt's assessment (especially from the previous video) that it was essentially some kind of general purpose shock heavy infantry. IMHO it could have been a very specialized type of infantry instead. But yes, even then you probably want them to not be wiped out by the first crossbow volley because they can't use shields. Makes sense to put armour on them.
@@efafe4972 Well, probably not through armour, no. I mean, as Matt himself says, a steel sword doesn't cut thorough steel armour. On the other hand, look at the massive leverage of that grip. As Matt points out, that's a darn long grip. That can generate a LOT of momentum. (I personally almost lost a forearm like the Skywalkers, way back, to a BLUNT two-hander with that kind of leverage while sparring, even through (obviously not enough) padding and polycarbon armor.) I'm guessing if you can swipe below the horse armour, that can take a horse leg clean off and have momentum to spare. Well, just my own anthropological guess. But as I was saying, I don't actually have any formal training as a historian, so chances are good I'm guessing wrong. Unrelated, I'm definitely 3d modellimg this for Skyrim and Fo4. I might be wrong about how it was used historically, but any raider that gets hit with this is gonna feel it :P
@@NegotiatorGladiarius Tang dynasty called them modao as well as daobang ("sword staff"). There remains a record of a captain who "stripped off his armor and shirt" and stood at the head of his troops, bellowing at the charging enemy cavalry. Li Siye Tang used both composite bow archers and crossbowmen and equipped the crossbowmen with this weapon. Before the loss of technology * after the Mongol conquest, the crossbowmen in Chinese doctrine tended to be the larger men, the better to shoot over the frontline as well as to load the crossbow. * Chinese crossbows of that era had intricate bronze triggers that enabled long power strokes, lessening the need for winch heavy pulls. In return for this greater power at lesser draw weight, obviating the need for a winch, one would have to draw the crossbow manually since there is no winch. Though there is pictorial evidence of winch crossbows in the Han dynasty
I remember reading an account from a Roman source (so taken with a pinch if salt), of Ceasar meeting a legionary who had some parts of his helmet fail when struck with a falcata. He reportedly survived but was maimed to the point of being nearly unrecognizable.
That is a neat quote, I have read it too. I am not an expert so take this with a pinch of salt as well. But It seems to me a lot of Roman helmets, maybe earlier ones were rather thin. There is talk of reinforcing helmets in the Dacian wars because they were inadequate.
Also "parts" failing can mean many things. Most likely his cheek protection failed or broke off(I forget what it's called) leading to the scars on his face. The helmet itself was probably totally fine.
Fantastic video, I am getting into swords thanks to you! Basically, I have always been a keen reader/student of military history but I never paid much attention to the weapons. I admire the detail you go into when explaining how weapons (or amour) worked. Regards!
Great video Matey, I remember a Scene in a movie about the Crusades that I saw as a child. It involved comparing a large broadsword and a curved bladed Sword. The broadsword was able to cut an iron bar in 2 and the curved blade cut a silk cushion in 2 but neither could do what the other did. As a young fella I found this amazing and it started my interest of bladed weapons. You are a brilliant source of information and your knowledge is amazing, keep them coming my friend 👍.
Would you consider making a video on bladed polearms such as the Glaive & Naginata? I've always been curious about the pros and cons, as well as the history :)
Halbaerds and Swiss hammers are among my favorite war weapons. They are simple yet perfectly designed for their task and are devastating on the battlefield.
I'd turn around the Liao Dao, and bludgeon an armored opponent with the points on the back. The hooked shape would facilitate the transmission of impact energy, especially if you catch the guy somewhere like the neck.
I would love to see you do a video on "well designed historical swords" vs "badly designed historical swords" I think there is a huge misconception that "it was made back when they used it regularly in battle and life and death situations so it MUST ALWAYS be better than anything we design or make to day" and that really needs to be addressed. I hate to use the same example over and over but dang that swiss saber Todd remade and you tested is just the best documented example out there. The guard was too tight around the hands, and the foible was too floppy (ok that part could be arguable). Many people would say "NAY! its historical so it must be superior to anything we would design today!"
I think generally when it comes to blunt and percussive force, people have this odd idea that it's only effective if the weapon is specifically designed to deal it. Ie if it's a mace or a hammer type weapon. However in actuality the biggest factors is weight and leverage. The shape of a weapon of course does help in perhaps concentrating that weight towards the tip or something but this doesn't matter as much as the weapons inherent weight in the first place does. A large two-handed sword which weighs two-three times that of a small one-handed mace will hit harder even if the mace is more 'optimised' for blunt force because the large sword simply has way more mass and leverage.
No, it won't. When we are talking about punching through armor - we are talking about momentum. Momentum is mass times speed. In case of two-handed sword it is balanced in such way that tip is not very heavy. Not much of momentum will be transferred. In case of mace - at least half of it's momentum will be transferred. Also, two handed word doesn't have much leverage.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 You hit at point of percussion. I agree that zweihander is better at it then a longsword (it feels as something in between polearm and longsword). Yet mass of the part of a sword that is between tip and point of percussion is quite small. Also it is less stiff then polearm or mace. Also hitting with bad blade alignment can have big impact on how hard it hits. If I was a guy with mace, I would be much more scared of someone going for gaps then just buhurting his way with zweihander.
@@VK-sz4it I specifically said large two handed sword, implying something akin to a schlachtschwert or a montante which would often weigh over 2 or sometimes even 3kg, as contrasted to a typical mace of the time which usually is around 1kg or even lighter. The momentum of such a sword is significantly higher than the mace, as is its leverage due to a far larger grip.
It's almost as if some people don't realize that there is something in between tunic and full plate harness. "Armoured" does not exclusively mean 100% encased in steel
One of my pet peeves in movies & TV shows, especially fantasy ones, is that the heroes are always able to kill fully armored enemies left and right with just a single swing or thrust of their normal bladed weapons.
Even Game of Thrones with Valyrian steel going through all manner of armour like it was paper is silly. I liked The Last Duel because it showed defeating armour realistically.
During your first video with this Dao I believe you said its a replica of a 1000 year old blade, not many "knights" wore full plate or had complete coverage at that time, so options to slice a leg or less armoured body part would be available, also with the weight of the blade a two handed strike could break someones wrist or damage armour joints to take them out the fight.
Very interesting - as others have said, you don't need to pierce armour - if you give a jointed section a good hit - that elbow armour or knee armour is going to dent and stop working.....quite useful when poking pointed things or hammering folk. Great stuff Matt, cheers.
It was so even in WW2. The ISU 152 was considered among the best Soviet tank-killers. It could not penetrate the armour of German Tigers, but it fired explosive rounds that could rip the whole turret from the hull, and that certainly impaired functionality. In medieval terms, if you cannot pierce the helmet but you hit so hard that you break the knight's neck… well, he cannot fight any more.
Рік тому+2
A sharp blade might not cut through the armor, but I think an interesting point is that it can still bite a bit. A blunt weapon would deflect more easily while a sharp edge would be able to maintain stable contact with the armor for longer and thereby transfer more of the energy.
I had exactly this thought recently when thinking about katanas and their very hard edges. The edge is weaker but can also bite more easily on armor (which should be softer than a katana's edge, even if still hardened). This, along with the katana's rigidity and tip-heaviness, may enable it to transfer much more blunt force to the target underneath in a strike, especially biomechanically favorable strikes like downwards cuts, and especially against vulnerable targets like the head, shoulders and collarbone.
Percussive injuries can be as lethal or moreso than cutting or piercing injuries. A man in armour who is hit hard on the head can sustain lethal brain injuries just for starters. In fact one effect of the heavy bodkin arrow against heavy armour was to cause concussive trauma that disabled the enemy and made him extremely vulnerable to follow-up attacks with small piercing weapons such as daggers. This happened at Agincourt.
What I love about Matt Easton is that he looks like an ordinary dad, talks like an ordinary dad, but occasionally you'll watch him actually hit something with a sword or a mace or whatever and immediately realize that he could cut you right in half
4:09 - Perhaps, Percussive impact? And then there is crushing impact as well I guess. One travels through armour/steel. The other, uses the armour to aid crushing whats inside.
You mentioned in your video about curved vs straight 19th century saber that curved one just hits harder, which i think is why it makes sense to usr it against someone in armour as in "just" whack him hard, still better than nothing. Also, people underestimete the ringing of metal helmets, it can be disorienting enough to incapacite, at least fot a few seconds, more than enough to trip and skewer into the gaps, or if you are strong enough, pick up slam your oponent into the ground, preferably on the head
Hi Matt, perhaps a topic suggestion for a series: comparing combat in Mount & Blade: Bannerlord to how it would be in real life. Both individual, group, as well as battlefield.
Would the momentum in heavy relitivly long pole weapons like billhooks break the underling bones and potentially just cave in a plate? I've heard impact velocities for bill hooks suggested at 30-40mph and several kg in the head.
Also a lot of the pole arms had fine pointed tips for armor gap and many of the large swords are flexible towards the tip which can help get in gaps aswell
I practiced SCA “ Heavy Combat” for many years, fighting in steel Samurai armor and frequently using a Naginata, especially in melee’s and large battles. My Nag is 7’ long with a fairly heavy blade shaped head made of a dense rubber material, coated of course in the obligatory duct tape. Many is the time I hit fully armored opponents with it and knocked them down, or caused them some injury, especially if we met at a run. There were a few times when the opponent was basically “done for the day” with that one hit, 10:03 and these are not wimpy opponents. A steel version would be slightly faster and of course concentrate the force on a much thinner line than the 1.25” (32mm) wide “blades” mandated in SCA. I would expect lightly armored areas like the neck and underarms, arms pinned against the body and the back of the knees to be crushed and arteries torn or damaged as a result. Only the best armor would stop it, and that armor was always very rare.
I know from years of instruction by Hollywood that you didn't need a weapon that can cut through a helmet because the first thing medieval and ancient combatants did when things got hairy was take off their helmets and toss them aside.
If you read stories about like the Kamakura era, or the Genpei war, they always throw off their helmets for dramatic single combat too. And that’s just text! No expensive actor faces to show off lol
There are indeed some Chinese historical sources that document the advantage of armor, while others emphasize the advantage of weapons, I guess it depends on which one the author wants to emphasize. There is a source that says: swords can only be used against soldiers without armor, and if you encounter heavy armor, you must use bian (a Chinese blunt weapon, sometimes translated as BARMACE). There is also information that there was a general who was full of enemy arrows in battle, making him look like a hedgehog. But his heavy armor kept him alive. Another book tells this story: Two armies fighting, and one of them discovers that the other's armor is too strong. This forced them to abandon their original weapons and find some thick wooden clubs as weapons. And when authors want to emphasize the power of weapons, such as some kind of bow or crossbow, they say that arrows can penetrate multiple layers of armor.
Could those swept peaks on the spine of the blade be used for striking armor? I imagine you may want to strike with the spine so as to avoid damaging the blade.
Coolest fact from this video. 'Eisenhower' means 'Iron Cutter'. Just the name one would like for one tasked with commanding the breakthrough of the Atlantic Wall. Other trivia, the forefather of Dwight Eisenhower, Hans Nikolaus Eisenhauer, migrated from Karlsbrunn to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1741, exactly two hundred years before Germany declared war on the United States.
Since the edge focuses the percussive force into a smaller surface area, wouldn't a heavy edged weapon have a better chance of denting the armor? Might this be good for locking up joints and breaking bones? It seems like a heavily armored opponent is someone you'd much rather incapacitate without killing, so as to collect the ransom.
Yeah that's why a wood chopping axe has a relatively blunt wedge shaped blade with lots of weight behind it. It doesn't cut so much as split the wood. Swords are much finer edged generally. And maces have blunt edges with a lot of mass to crush armour.
Some thought about cuts against armour: 1. While head and torso were often covered in plate or lamellar armour, neck, arms and legs maight be unarmoured or protected only by padded, leather or mail armour. I suppose heavy two-handed weapoms maight cut through those or at least breack bones by blunt force. 2. While it is almost impossible to cut through new good-quality armour. there is a possibility that the armour is poorly-made (from iron or unhardened steel and/or with varying thickness) and/or is old and not well-maintaned (rusty, previously damaged) and/or is compromized during this battle by previous strikes (bent, punctured, notched and so on) . And while it is unwize to count on such an accident, if the strike is powerful enough, there is a possibility it will cut through such armour, and it is much more likely for powerful cuts with heavy two-handed weapons.
Matt - arrows Vs armour was excellent, but I'd love an arms Vs armour. What kind of deformation and piercing can actually be achieved with various melee weapons. That'd be super interesting to see the armour and weaponry through time periods too. Of course it was all an arms race with armour improving to cancel out improving weapons, but you get the gist. CAN you collapse a helmet with a mace? Does a hefty blade like this dent armour? How specialised did weapons have to get before the soldier could defeat specific armours? Etc
A "cross-check" with the handle of a two-handed sword or the pole of a pollaxe can be a very stiff and powerful attack to the head/ face that can cause a devastating concussion to the opponent even through a well padded steel helmet.
I saw a History Channel/Discovery show decades ago that talked about how medieval peasants could fight against armored opponents with some kind of farm tools that were basically hooks on poles. They’d use them to catch the gaps in the armor and pull them to the ground via leverage.
There's an old tournament footage of Toby Capwell taking a knee after a solid poleax shot to his helm, iirc those were also practice ones made of dense rubber.
How likely would such weapons cut through gauntlets? I remember the often mentioned tournament between the english king and the french king where they wanted to use two handed swords and cancelled it because they had no gauntlets that would withstand the blows of such weapons as they wrote. i could imagine that at least they would kind of destroy/damage the less protective finger gauntlets. Monte also mentions cuts to the hands in an combat situation against probably fully armed opponents.
Broken hands definitely, depends on how high quality the gauntlets were if they'd survive without getting chopped off through. If you took a full power blow to the hands from a greatsword or even a hefty longsword you'd probably not be using that hand for the rest of the fight, and depending on how hefty the sword was and what quality the gauntlets were, you may be permanently out of a sword hand.
@@Specter_1125 Could be though the wording seems to imply that the gauntlet would not uphold. They would have had mitten gauntlets as well. Other sources especially for war seem to at least imply something along those lines. And monte specifically targets the hands with the sword in earnest combat. And some of the heavy bladed weapons could weight up to 5 kg so i wouldnt be surprised if they could partially get through thinner gauntlets or weak spots.
I'm hearing you say that a slashing weapon's (sword) damage is converted (and lessened) when striking armor, unless your blow was able to hit a vulnerable point (bypassing most of the protection). It is converted to bludgeoning damage which will take a toll on the armor wearer (target) and is based on the mass (larger = more damage). And, if it strikes the head, it can cause the same types of outcomes that any bludgeoning damage can do to that location (head) armored or not (example: a punch to the head).
Yes, but slashing weapons have a different mass distribution along the length of the weapon then bludgeoning weapons. The latter have them concentrated towards the end while slashing swords most often balance closer to the hilt. Therefore gaining less momentum when swung and dealing less concussion compared to specialised blunt weapons. Also think about the geometry of a slashing blade. Its often thin and plane which enàbles it to absorb a lot of energy on impact by woblling and flexing, while blunt weapons are often way stiffer and more cylindrical.
This is like folks freaking out about 'nuclear' submarines isn't it. Nuclear powered doesn't mean nuclear armed. Just because you're wearing armor doesn't mean your opponents are. As for the halberd, imagine how great those would be about crowd control. Picture a bunch of palace guards with shiny halberds and breastplates lining up to quell a riot or forming a line to defend a monarch and entourage getting out of a carriage while they made their way into the castle or Parliament building. Quite effective if things get out of hand.
Regarding WWII the Soviet Union developed steel breastplate (Stalnoi Nagrudnik) for use by assault engineers. There were various models e.g. the SN-38, SN-39, SN-40, SN-42, and the SN-46 with the number denoting the year of development.
Just throwing this out there. Maybe get a dedicated necklace for your mic, to save your shirt collars. If it weren't for the bloody pond, I'd offer to pop by, and macrame you something cool.
It literally means "Ironhitter". The german verb "hauen" (infinite of "[Eisen]hauer") means to strike/beat/hit. So you could call it Ironbeater or Ironstriker aswell. Hauen does *not* mean "to cut" or "to pass through something". Although you could use it to describe chipping something off. Like a person who makes sculptures from stone is called a "Bildhauer" (Bild=Image/Picture). Interestingly the large, sharpened front teeth of a male boar are also called "Hauer" in german.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis we have old English hēawan related to Dutch houwen and German hauen as meaning to chop, cut, or make out of (by removing). As in, one might hew to some form, by producing an image from a material, much as you describe. A synonym might be to lop or chop. I think there is an important distinction between English "hit" and "hew" that preserves the "removing of a chunk" aspect of hauen. One does not hew with a hammer.
It's strange to me that people would believe that a sword or other steel melee weapon is intended to chop straight through plate armor. I have to imagine that they are the kinds of "office space" type employees that have never had to build, fabricate, or craft anything to sell for a living. It's far more likely to have a realistic understanding of materials and physics if you've worked with those materials for many years and learned the capabilities and limitations of it. I loved steel/metalworking since I can remember. My dad was the VP of a tool and die shop in the Midwest when I was a kid so I ended up spending a lot of time at their shop. It was a shop that you'd expect to find building fabrication tools anywhere through the 20th century with milling machines, lathes, drill presses, hydraulic presses, press brakes, bandsaws, every type of welding machine, and much more. There were many times when I would spend entire days at the shop just observing what all the guys were doing and they taught me the basics of pretty much all of the fabrication processes. In so doing, a lot of the guys there could tell you almost every single attribute of every type of steel that rolled in the shop. Hell, they even had a building (that used to be the main shop until they bought the larger building next door) completely dedicated to painting that a couple guys used to repaint old project cars. But growing up in a shop like that taught me a LOT about fabrication and material properties. There aren't a ton of 12 year olds that could run a manual mill, lathe, drill press, brake, or weld. Those guys even taught me about forging and heat treating different types of steel. But I was able to find something that I loved doing. It's just a shame that metal fabrication is so heavily discouraged nowadays. It's "more economical" to ship that shit overseas. But I have been able to apply some of that knowledge into building firearms. That was all a very long-winded way of saying that I wish people had any level of appreciation or respect for the various metals, steels, and alloys. Obviously having armor and weapons both made of steel means that you're likely to end in a draw if you expect to defeat the armor. But chopping through the armor was never the point. Since plate armor needs to be fitted to the user, the steel being used will be relatively close to the body/skin. The best way to defeat that armor that doesn't require cutting it apart is to crush it. Since the steel armor is form fit to the user, there isn't a lot of extra space around it if it should deform. So using a weapon that is capable of crushing the plates inward means that it could restrict movement of, or possibly puncture, the skin underneath the crumpled armor. Hitting joints would be especially effective as the opponent becomes severely restricted in movement. That also gives you more time to find a gap in the armor in which to plunge your blade (spear, axe, sword, dagger, etc.) Very cool stuff, Mr. Easton
I don’t know the proper way to ask you a question so I’ll shout it into the comments… I’ve been forging my own Lucerne hammer and it has gotten me thinking very much about the placement of languets on pole arms. Facing with the hammer head, perpendicular to the hammer head,over the hammer head or under the hammer head. I see several ways to do it, and advantages and disadvantages for use and forging it each way. I was curious what historical pieces have shown and what your take on the matter is. Ideally all sides of the haft would have that extra protection, but if you could only cover two opposite sides, which ones would you pick and why?
Well first of all it is ART not always the artist wants or is capable of depicting things realistically. But also a helm could be split by a sword. Imagine a situation where the helmet is of poor quality steel and manufacturing while the striking sword is of really good quality steel and manufacturing.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis yeah, a lot of helms were made in 2 or 4 pieces and riveted together. And if what is shown actually happened, who knows how many times the helmet was struck before the rivets failed.
It wasn't just tanks that got armour in WW2. Just before the Arnhem operation the 1st Airborne Reconnaissance regiment of the 1st Airborne Div were issued with body armour made of steel plates backed by padding. This was effective at stopping 9mm rounds and grenade splinters, but not rifle calibre rounds.
Imagine how cool it will be if modern science comes up with a new high-tech padding that is so good that you could wear a thin layer of it under plate armor and then go full speed sparring with swords and other medieval weapons without suffering concussions (or have just the amount of padding to give the percussive power that boxers take) and broken bones. New sports would be born.
Against armour, impulse (f=m*a) is your friend. The resultant acceleration can break someones neck, bones, or “just” shear off his or her tendons, give them a concussion, and many more nasty injuries with long-lasting effects. No need to cut through a knights head armour if you can accelerate it - and the brain inside - by a few metres per second squared in a tenth of a second or less. Look at what brain injuries people can suffer from playing American Football, even with that helmet. I think there is even a movie about that. Or what head injuries traffic accidents can cause on motorcyclists.
I think people often conflate cutting through or piercing armour with doing damage. You can very well not be able to pierce an armour from a cavalry lance charge, but the impact force could still mean concussion, dislocation or internal hemorrhage, and death...... So a blow from a heavy blade might not cut through armour, but it doesn't mean that it won't do damage.
Ww2 soviet engineers wore an armoured breastplate in order to protect their torsos (and therefore most primary organs) from small arms fire and shrapnel. This enabled them to get into the most effective range for their weaponry, namely the ppsh and flamethrower (plus bomb dogs 😂)
I'm really hoping one day you'll touch on ashigaru infantry tactics. Wait till your average person finds how they actually used polearms in formation almost totally opposite to pike formation tactics in Europe.
In order to potentially cut through plate armor you basically need a really really really good sword vs a really really really crappy suit of plate armor but still even in those perfect ideal circumstances it might very well not even happen.
How does this compare with period art and tapestry that depicts swords cutting into helmets? Are they misleading artistic license or was it something that did happen on the battlefield. What about The Bruce ax splitting the helmet of Henry de Bohun? Are they accurate stories?
Artist might not always have intended or been capable of depicting reality. Also a very poor quality helmet could be cut by a heavier high quality sword. I don't know about the story you mention but since axes concentrate their mass at the end that gets swung around they impact with much more momentum then a swordblade and also might have better splitting edgegeomitry then a blade meant for finer cutting.
Based on your recent videos it would seem a more nuisance classification for swords for fully armoured soldiers would not be as a “backup” or “secondary” weapon but a secondary primary weapon? That in many situation it would be favoured depending on who the soldiers were facing. Where are backup weapon would imply it is only ever used in emergency
in WW2, the British army developed a type of cannon round for their tanks called High Explosive Squash Head(HESH), which upon impact squashes against enemy armor before detonating, transfering energy through a large surface and lethally shattering the armor on the other side without actually piercing a hole in it. Armor-piercing is an anti-armor method, but anti-armor does not always equal armor-piercing.
Yep, and that is also how the warhammers like the one on his Halberd works. You smash the personal armor so hard it buckles and pushes against the enemy's body, causing injury, incapacitation or even death.
HESH rounds are still used by Challenger tanks.
And they still rely on it because rifled barrels kekw
PS I'm aware they supposedly have smoothbores lying around in case of a peer conflict but for some reason they didn't replace them in those sent to ua
@@Sk0lzky No point to change. Its a show anyway.
HESH ammunition was initially for busting bunkers. The way to blow up a wall is to bury explosives inside the wall, not to pierce through the wall. And yes, HESH turned out to be quite effective against tanks, due to the tank armor spalling on the inside. Which is why more modern tanks have spall liners.
"This is a 15th century sallet, and this is a bokken!" whack whack whack...
Never change Matt :D
Getting some excellent nostalgia to you hitting yourself with a mace
Same lol
New GIF
Yeah. It's been a while
One thing I also picked up from Tod's archery vs plate videos is that you can damage an armour's joints by hitting them hard (like elbow joints or any segmented bits that are riveted together), so that it gets harder for the wearer to stay flexible and continue fighting with their equipment.
There was one hit of an arrow around the shoulder/bicep area, which didn't penetrate but left a really deep dent in the armor. The guys said it meant that the armor did it's work, which is of course true, but I doubt that anyone could pick up and swing a weapon with that arm... Contusions in the major muscles are incredibly painful, I once had a guy land with his knee on my bicep in a judo match and I just couldn't use the arm for anything for a week, even holding the handlebars of my bike was painful...
@@Kholdaimon I had a dude tried to do a jumping guard pass to pin me and my chest hurt for like 2 weeks. I feel your pain
Interesting!!
It has parallels with attacking a main battle tank. If you fire at the frontal armour, it's going to be hard work but take out a single track and the 80 ton tank is disabled.
Thank you for going into more depth and detail on how how these weapons were likely used. This follow-up really filled in the story.
One thing that’s always puzzled me is the prevalence of a very specific type of image in medieval art: a two-handed downward cut with a sword that splits the top of the target’s helmet with blood pouring out of the split. It’s an image I’ve seen repeatedly across centuries, and while the action itself seems implausible to me, it also seems weird that a depiction of that specific attack being delivered in that specific way should recur so often over such a span of time if it never happened.
Although I somewhat doubt the plausibility, I'd say that's definitely worth testing 🤡
We also have to accept people will somewhat embellish their stories/art etc. Also imagine the skirmishes are quite hectic, the blood pouring out might not be from the head wound. Heck it might not even be their own blood.
It could have something to do with inferior quality armor.
id love to see a test that tries worse and worse quality helmets until cutting it becomes a possibility
And building on this, what is the worst quality helmet feasible for people to have used at the time. As modern poor quality steel/iron is quite different to medieval poor quality metal.
Well said, I think many of the comments are a case of taking the “ sword cuts are ineffective against armour” thing a bit too far. I think it’s easy for some folks to see the dao you are showing and assume that because it’s a sword it’s useless against a helmet but it still can hit just hard enough. There is a reason why full power sparring with greatswords is at best difficult to do safely.
I would also argue a full power swing from a beefy saber from horseback at a gallop might threaten to hurt someone wearing a brass helmet like in the Napoleonic period. Perhaps a topic to explore in a future video!
At the end of the day what the armour does is reducing being hit with a piece of sharp steel to being hit with a piece of steel. Wouldn't really recommend it either way.
Definitely. I think, to the horse point, almost anything would produce an absolutely blistered wound. Even a "mundane" item like a baseball bat would probably cause massive trauma is one were to swing it from full gallop.
@@karlschulze3237 Indeed, criminally underrated even in some history communities. Genghis Khan deserves his fame but so do his dogs of war.
@@kounurasaka5590 Yeah it’s an easy thing to overlook especially because even most martial artists are not skilled horsemen or spend that much time around horses. This is something for Jason Kingsley to comment on as well I think. The fact horses amplify impact is also why axes, maces, and warhammers are popular on horseback. (As well as the presence of armour in situation where half-swording and grappling is impossible)
@@karlschulze3237the greatest general in history is debatable. Many would say it’s Napoleon.
If society ever breaks down I am finding this gentleman and swearing my allegiance to him
Keep in mind that the lamellar armor of the time period didn't always have full lamellar sleeves. The lamellar jacket would extend down from the shoulder to cover the upper arms and the gauntlets would extend up from the wrists, but I'm pretty sure many examples still had multiple inches of elbow that would be covered by lighter cloth (chainmail too?).
That blade could absolutely lop an arm straight off if your enemy didn't have chainmail and if they did the impact could still damage the joint.
As a side note, I know that as early as the Han dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) and at least as late all the way to the end of the Liao dynasty (although the military text we have is from the Northern Song dynasty, but chronologically they overlap), they used trained specialized infantry with oversized swords, specifically to attack the horses of enemy cavalry. And I think you yourself made a video before on the Zhanmadao, a.k.a., horse behading sword. (Although texts suggest they attacked the leg of the horse.) There even was a double edged jian called a Zhanmajian.
Anyway, since we have contemporary texts about using swords against horses, the moment you mentioned how this could kill a beast, my mind instantly made that connection. It wouldn't surprise me if this super-sharp and beefy thing was the Liao answer to the zhanmadao the other dynasties were using against them. I.e., not as much a general weapon for fighting in or against armour, but for those trained infantry specialists that counter horsemen. (And still are able to hold their own otherwise.)
I mean, look at even the shape of the forward edge. One of the surviving examples of zhanmadao (plus some period drawings) has an edge that's straight for the most part and curves for the last third or so of the blade. This one has exactly that shape too. AND the socket on the front forms effectively a ricasso at the base, just like the Japanese zanbato version of the zhanmadao. This one is broader and has a usable tip, so it's not identical, but it's IMHO within the realm of plausible derivatives for the same purpose.
Just as my own unqualified guess. I'm not formally trained as a historian, so I'm probably wrong.
@@efafe4972 Yeah. I mean, even from a pragmatic point of view, if you gave someone a lot of training for that role (and they need a LOT to stand against a charging mass of horsemen with a sword), they're relatively hard to replace. We're talking elite troops. You can't just conscript another thousand peasants. Definitely makes sense to put armour on them.
I was more like wondering about Matt's assessment (especially from the previous video) that it was essentially some kind of general purpose shock heavy infantry. IMHO it could have been a very specialized type of infantry instead.
But yes, even then you probably want them to not be wiped out by the first crossbow volley because they can't use shields. Makes sense to put armour on them.
@@efafe4972 Well, probably not through armour, no. I mean, as Matt himself says, a steel sword doesn't cut thorough steel armour.
On the other hand, look at the massive leverage of that grip. As Matt points out, that's a darn long grip. That can generate a LOT of momentum. (I personally almost lost a forearm like the Skywalkers, way back, to a BLUNT two-hander with that kind of leverage while sparring, even through (obviously not enough) padding and polycarbon armor.) I'm guessing if you can swipe below the horse armour, that can take a horse leg clean off and have momentum to spare.
Well, just my own anthropological guess. But as I was saying, I don't actually have any formal training as a historian, so chances are good I'm guessing wrong.
Unrelated, I'm definitely 3d modellimg this for Skyrim and Fo4. I might be wrong about how it was used historically, but any raider that gets hit with this is gonna feel it :P
@@NegotiatorGladiarius Tang dynasty called them modao as well as daobang ("sword staff"). There remains a record of a captain who "stripped off his armor and shirt" and stood at the head of his troops, bellowing at the charging enemy cavalry. Li Siye
Tang used both composite bow archers and crossbowmen and equipped the crossbowmen with this weapon. Before the loss of technology * after the Mongol conquest, the crossbowmen in Chinese doctrine tended to be the larger men, the better to shoot over the frontline as well as to load the crossbow.
* Chinese crossbows of that era had intricate bronze triggers that enabled long power strokes, lessening the need for winch heavy pulls. In return for this greater power at lesser draw weight, obviating the need for a winch, one would have to draw the crossbow manually since there is no winch. Though there is pictorial evidence of winch crossbows in the Han dynasty
"Zhan/斩" can mean both chop and execution, so "beheading" is just a tiny mistranslation.
That war hammer hanging on the wall behind you would be the weapon of choice for defeating armor
Definitly, but this video focuses on BLADED weapons, like indicated in the title of the video.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis , Yes well with that being stated I will go with the Albion arming sword with that nice pointy tip.
I remember reading an account from a Roman source (so taken with a pinch if salt), of Ceasar meeting a legionary who had some parts of his helmet fail when struck with a falcata.
He reportedly survived but was maimed to the point of being nearly unrecognizable.
That is a neat quote, I have read it too. I am not an expert so take this with a pinch of salt as well. But It seems to me a lot of Roman helmets, maybe earlier ones were rather thin. There is talk of reinforcing helmets in the Dacian wars because they were inadequate.
Also remember that the uniformity of Roman equipment is a pop culture creation.
They did use bronze helmets at various points of their long history.
Not in the dacian wars where the quite comes from.
Also "parts" failing can mean many things. Most likely his cheek protection failed or broke off(I forget what it's called) leading to the scars on his face. The helmet itself was probably totally fine.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 It was linked to the Wikipedia article on the falcata.
Fantastic video, I am getting into swords thanks to you! Basically, I have always been a keen reader/student of military history but I never paid much attention to the weapons. I admire the detail you go into when explaining how weapons (or amour) worked. Regards!
Great video Matey, I remember a Scene in a movie about the Crusades that I saw as a child. It involved comparing a large broadsword and a curved bladed Sword. The broadsword was able to cut an iron bar in 2 and the curved blade cut a silk cushion in 2 but neither could do what the other did. As a young fella I found this amazing and it started my interest of bladed weapons. You are a brilliant source of information and your knowledge is amazing, keep them coming my friend 👍.
Would you consider making a video on bladed polearms such as the Glaive & Naginata? I've always been curious about the pros and cons, as well as the history :)
Liked in first 10 seconds because bonking with a bokken
Bonkken
A perfect commentary! And man, you make me want to get that item so much more than ever!
Halbaerds and Swiss hammers are among my favorite war weapons. They are simple yet perfectly designed for their task and are devastating on the battlefield.
I'd turn around the Liao Dao, and bludgeon an armored opponent with the points on the back. The hooked shape would facilitate the transmission of impact energy, especially if you catch the guy somewhere like the neck.
Look at the pointy bits on the back or even the edge of some types of falchion. Would keep the blow from skimming off and losing energy.
I would love to see you do a video on "well designed historical swords" vs "badly designed historical swords"
I think there is a huge misconception that "it was made back when they used it regularly in battle and life and death situations so it MUST ALWAYS be better than anything we design or make to day" and that really needs to be addressed. I hate to use the same example over and over but dang that swiss saber Todd remade and you tested is just the best documented example out there. The guard was too tight around the hands, and the foible was too floppy (ok that part could be arguable). Many people would say "NAY! its historical so it must be superior to anything we would design today!"
I think generally when it comes to blunt and percussive force, people have this odd idea that it's only effective if the weapon is specifically designed to deal it. Ie if it's a mace or a hammer type weapon. However in actuality the biggest factors is weight and leverage. The shape of a weapon of course does help in perhaps concentrating that weight towards the tip or something but this doesn't matter as much as the weapons inherent weight in the first place does. A large two-handed sword which weighs two-three times that of a small one-handed mace will hit harder even if the mace is more 'optimised' for blunt force because the large sword simply has way more mass and leverage.
No, it won't. When we are talking about punching through armor - we are talking about momentum. Momentum is mass times speed. In case of two-handed sword it is balanced in such way that tip is not very heavy. Not much of momentum will be transferred. In case of mace - at least half of it's momentum will be transferred.
Also, two handed word doesn't have much leverage.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 You hit at point of percussion. I agree that zweihander is better at it then a longsword (it feels as something in between polearm and longsword).
Yet mass of the part of a sword that is between tip and point of percussion is quite small. Also it is less stiff then polearm or mace. Also hitting with bad blade alignment can have big impact on how hard it hits.
If I was a guy with mace, I would be much more scared of someone going for gaps then just buhurting his way with zweihander.
@@VK-sz4it I specifically said large two handed sword, implying something akin to a schlachtschwert or a montante which would often weigh over 2 or sometimes even 3kg, as contrasted to a typical mace of the time which usually is around 1kg or even lighter.
The momentum of such a sword is significantly higher than the mace, as is its leverage due to a far larger grip.
My favourite kind of content from this channel. Teach me more, please 😊
I love it when Matt says "Bolognese source" 😉
"Steel armor is also made of steel."
Me: Wait WHAT?!
Very informative and always interesting topics. Clear and well explained. Thanks for posting.
My first thought was cutting horses. Lightly armored enemies too, but also a lot of Chinese armor was mass-produced lamellar that was tied together.
It's almost as if some people don't realize that there is something in between tunic and full plate harness. "Armoured" does not exclusively mean 100% encased in steel
This was a great addendum to the previous video
That blade was magnificent 👌 the two handed one. I like all the different swords east and west have a good evening.
TLDR: Frodo would have had his guts squashed into mush by that cave troll despite his mithril chainmail.
One of my pet peeves in movies & TV shows, especially fantasy ones, is that the heroes are always able to kill fully armored enemies left and right with just a single swing or thrust of their normal bladed weapons.
Even Game of Thrones with Valyrian steel going through all manner of armour like it was paper is silly. I liked The Last Duel because it showed defeating armour realistically.
During your first video with this Dao I believe you said its a replica of a 1000 year old blade, not many "knights" wore full plate or had complete coverage at that time, so options to slice a leg or less armoured body part would be available, also with the weight of the blade a two handed strike could break someones wrist or damage armour joints to take them out the fight.
Ju Jitsu doesn't care if you are wearing armour
Very interesting - as others have said, you don't need to pierce armour - if you give a jointed section a good hit - that elbow armour or knee armour is going to dent and stop working.....quite useful when poking pointed things or hammering folk.
Great stuff Matt, cheers.
Also useful against the mechanisms of 20th century tanks.
It was so even in WW2. The ISU 152 was considered among the best Soviet tank-killers. It could not penetrate the armour of German Tigers, but it fired explosive rounds that could rip the whole turret from the hull, and that certainly impaired functionality. In medieval terms, if you cannot pierce the helmet but you hit so hard that you break the knight's neck… well, he cannot fight any more.
A sharp blade might not cut through the armor, but I think an interesting point is that it can still bite a bit. A blunt weapon would deflect more easily while a sharp edge would be able to maintain stable contact with the armor for longer and thereby transfer more of the energy.
I had exactly this thought recently when thinking about katanas and their very hard edges. The edge is weaker but can also bite more easily on armor (which should be softer than a katana's edge, even if still hardened). This, along with the katana's rigidity and tip-heaviness, may enable it to transfer much more blunt force to the target underneath in a strike, especially biomechanically favorable strikes like downwards cuts, and especially against vulnerable targets like the head, shoulders and collarbone.
Percussive injuries can be as lethal or moreso than cutting or piercing injuries. A man in armour who is hit hard on the head can sustain lethal brain injuries just for starters. In fact one effect of the heavy bodkin arrow against heavy armour was to cause concussive trauma that disabled the enemy and made him extremely vulnerable to follow-up attacks with small piercing weapons such as daggers. This happened at Agincourt.
Awesome presentation, thankyou 🙏🙏🙏🙏
What I love about Matt Easton is that he looks like an ordinary dad, talks like an ordinary dad, but occasionally you'll watch him actually hit something with a sword or a mace or whatever and immediately realize that he could cut you right in half
lol I wouldn't ever advise burglarizing his house armed with just a machete...
4:09 - Perhaps, Percussive impact? And then there is crushing impact as well I guess.
One travels through armour/steel. The other, uses the armour to aid crushing whats inside.
You mentioned in your video about curved vs straight 19th century saber that curved one just hits harder, which i think is why it makes sense to usr it against someone in armour as in "just" whack him hard, still better than nothing. Also, people underestimete the ringing of metal helmets, it can be disorienting enough to incapacite, at least fot a few seconds, more than enough to trip and skewer into the gaps, or if you are strong enough, pick up slam your oponent into the ground, preferably on the head
Hi Matt, perhaps a topic suggestion for a series: comparing combat in Mount & Blade: Bannerlord to how it would be in real life. Both individual, group, as well as battlefield.
Would the momentum in heavy relitivly long pole weapons like billhooks break the underling bones and potentially just cave in a plate? I've heard impact velocities for bill hooks suggested at 30-40mph and several kg in the head.
That intro is memeable
Someone should do that.
Also a lot of the pole arms had fine pointed tips for armor gap and many of the large swords are flexible towards the tip which can help get in gaps aswell
I practiced SCA “ Heavy Combat” for many years, fighting in steel Samurai armor and frequently using a Naginata, especially in melee’s and large battles. My Nag is 7’ long with a fairly heavy blade shaped head made of a dense rubber material, coated of course in the obligatory duct tape. Many is the time I hit fully armored opponents with it and knocked them down, or caused them some injury, especially if we met at a run. There were a few times when the opponent was basically “done for the day” with that one hit, 10:03 and these are not wimpy opponents. A steel version would be slightly faster and of course concentrate the force on a much thinner line than the 1.25” (32mm) wide “blades” mandated in SCA. I would expect lightly armored areas like the neck and underarms, arms pinned against the body and the back of the knees to be crushed and arteries torn or damaged as a result. Only the best armor would stop it, and that armor was always very rare.
Thanks for the video ⚔️
I know from years of instruction by Hollywood that you didn't need a weapon that can cut through a helmet because the first thing medieval and ancient combatants did when things got hairy was take off their helmets and toss them aside.
If you read stories about like the Kamakura era, or the Genpei war, they always throw off their helmets for dramatic single combat too. And that’s just text! No expensive actor faces to show off lol
There are indeed some Chinese historical sources that document the advantage of armor, while others emphasize the advantage of weapons, I guess it depends on which one the author wants to emphasize.
There is a source that says: swords can only be used against soldiers without armor, and if you encounter heavy armor, you must use bian (a Chinese blunt weapon, sometimes translated as BARMACE).
There is also information that there was a general who was full of enemy arrows in battle, making him look like a hedgehog. But his heavy armor kept him alive.
Another book tells this story: Two armies fighting, and one of them discovers that the other's armor is too strong. This forced them to abandon their original weapons and find some thick wooden clubs as weapons.
And when authors want to emphasize the power of weapons, such as some kind of bow or crossbow, they say that arrows can penetrate multiple layers of armor.
Could those swept peaks on the spine of the blade be used for striking armor? I imagine you may want to strike with the spine so as to avoid damaging the blade.
Great idea. It makes a lot of sense. Thanks😊
Coolest fact from this video. 'Eisenhower' means 'Iron Cutter'. Just the name one would like for one tasked with commanding the breakthrough of the Atlantic Wall. Other trivia, the forefather of Dwight Eisenhower, Hans Nikolaus Eisenhauer, migrated from Karlsbrunn to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1741, exactly two hundred years before Germany declared war on the United States.
IJzerhouwer is a thing on 19th c swords here in the Netherlands as well.
i need a looped gif of matt whacking himself in the head with the visor down
Since the edge focuses the percussive force into a smaller surface area, wouldn't a heavy edged weapon have a better chance of denting the armor? Might this be good for locking up joints and breaking bones? It seems like a heavily armored opponent is someone you'd much rather incapacitate without killing, so as to collect the ransom.
I think its more to add a little extra weight on the places It might Matter most.
Yeah that's why a wood chopping axe has a relatively blunt wedge shaped blade with lots of weight behind it. It doesn't cut so much as split the wood. Swords are much finer edged generally. And maces have blunt edges with a lot of mass to crush armour.
Some thought about cuts against armour:
1. While head and torso were often covered in plate or lamellar armour, neck, arms and legs maight be unarmoured or protected only by padded, leather or mail armour. I suppose heavy two-handed weapoms maight cut through those or at least breack bones by blunt force.
2. While it is almost impossible to cut through new good-quality armour. there is a possibility that the armour is poorly-made (from iron or unhardened steel and/or with varying thickness) and/or is old and not well-maintaned (rusty, previously damaged) and/or is compromized during this battle by previous strikes (bent, punctured, notched and so on) . And while it is unwize to count on such an accident, if the strike is powerful enough, there is a possibility it will cut through such armour, and it is much more likely for powerful cuts with heavy two-handed weapons.
Matt - arrows Vs armour was excellent, but I'd love an arms Vs armour.
What kind of deformation and piercing can actually be achieved with various melee weapons. That'd be super interesting to see the armour and weaponry through time periods too. Of course it was all an arms race with armour improving to cancel out improving weapons, but you get the gist.
CAN you collapse a helmet with a mace? Does a hefty blade like this dent armour? How specialised did weapons have to get before the soldier could defeat specific armours? Etc
Can't help myself: this beefy behemoth looks amazing!
You can't mention "the anonymous Bolognese sauce" without providing a recipe
A "cross-check" with the handle of a two-handed sword or the pole of a pollaxe can be a very stiff and powerful attack to the head/ face that can cause a devastating concussion to the opponent even through a well padded steel helmet.
HE DID THE THING!
HE DID IT!!!
Nothing quite says that a person is totally fine like a person hitting himself in the head with a club, yelling "I'm fine!!"
People that speaks with a lot of loose hand gestures while holding sharp objects usually are able to keep my attention for long periods of time
I saw a History Channel/Discovery show decades ago that talked about how medieval peasants could fight against armored opponents with some kind of farm tools that were basically hooks on poles. They’d use them to catch the gaps in the armor and pull them to the ground via leverage.
There's an old tournament footage of Toby Capwell taking a knee after a solid poleax shot to his helm, iirc those were also practice ones made of dense rubber.
How likely would such weapons cut through gauntlets? I remember the often mentioned tournament between the english king and the french king where they wanted to use two handed swords and cancelled it because they had no gauntlets that would withstand the blows of such weapons as they wrote. i could imagine that at least they would kind of destroy/damage the less protective finger gauntlets. Monte also mentions cuts to the hands in an combat situation against probably fully armed opponents.
Broken hands definitely, depends on how high quality the gauntlets were if they'd survive without getting chopped off through.
If you took a full power blow to the hands from a greatsword or even a hefty longsword you'd probably not be using that hand for the rest of the fight, and depending on how hefty the sword was and what quality the gauntlets were, you may be permanently out of a sword hand.
It was probably to avoid broken fingers rather than having them severed.
@@Specter_1125
Could be though the wording seems to imply that the gauntlet would not uphold. They would have had mitten gauntlets as well. Other sources especially for war seem to at least imply something along those lines. And monte specifically targets the hands with the sword in earnest combat.
And some of the heavy bladed weapons could weight up to 5 kg so i wouldnt be surprised if they could partially get through thinner gauntlets or weak spots.
I'm hearing you say that a slashing weapon's (sword) damage is converted (and lessened) when striking armor, unless your blow was able to hit a vulnerable point (bypassing most of the protection). It is converted to bludgeoning damage which will take a toll on the armor wearer (target) and is based on the mass (larger = more damage). And, if it strikes the head, it can cause the same types of outcomes that any bludgeoning damage can do to that location (head) armored or not (example: a punch to the head).
Yes, but slashing weapons have a different mass distribution along the length of the weapon then bludgeoning weapons. The latter have them concentrated towards the end while slashing swords most often balance closer to the hilt. Therefore gaining less momentum when swung and dealing less concussion compared to specialised blunt weapons.
Also think about the geometry of a slashing blade. Its often thin and plane which enàbles it to absorb a lot of energy on impact by woblling and flexing, while blunt weapons are often way stiffer and more cylindrical.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis Excellent points. Thanks for adding to the discussion!
What an intro to a funky topic
Great video.
This is like folks freaking out about 'nuclear' submarines isn't it. Nuclear powered doesn't mean nuclear armed. Just because you're wearing armor doesn't mean your opponents are.
As for the halberd, imagine how great those would be about crowd control. Picture a bunch of palace guards with shiny halberds and breastplates lining up to quell a riot or forming a line to defend a monarch and entourage getting out of a carriage while they made their way into the castle or Parliament building. Quite effective if things get out of hand.
This is a kind of important scene in a Wagner opera (though it’s only one town watchman)
That’s what this sword reminds me of - a giant can opener!
Regarding WWII the Soviet Union developed steel breastplate (Stalnoi Nagrudnik) for use by assault engineers. There were various models e.g. the SN-38, SN-39, SN-40, SN-42, and the SN-46 with the number denoting the year of development.
Just throwing this out there.
Maybe get a dedicated necklace for your mic, to save your shirt collars.
If it weren't for the bloody pond, I'd offer to pop by, and macrame you something cool.
Holy shit, Eisenschneider means iron cutter in German? No wonder Eisenhower was such a badass in World War 2
It literally means "Ironhitter".
The german verb "hauen" (infinite of "[Eisen]hauer") means to strike/beat/hit.
So you could call it Ironbeater or Ironstriker aswell.
Hauen does *not* mean "to cut" or "to pass through something". Although you could use it to describe chipping something off. Like a person who makes sculptures from stone is called a "Bildhauer" (Bild=Image/Picture). Interestingly the large, sharpened front teeth of a male boar are also called "Hauer" in german.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis we have old English hēawan related to Dutch houwen and German hauen as meaning to chop, cut, or make out of (by removing). As in, one might hew to some form, by producing an image from a material, much as you describe. A synonym might be to lop or chop. I think there is an important distinction between English "hit" and "hew" that preserves the "removing of a chunk" aspect of hauen. One does not hew with a hammer.
"I'm fine!!!" *collapses 😂
Weve had knockouts with traininghalberds with rubberheads and fencingmaks with overlay. And those were not fullpower hits so yes that does happen
It's strange to me that people would believe that a sword or other steel melee weapon is intended to chop straight through plate armor. I have to imagine that they are the kinds of "office space" type employees that have never had to build, fabricate, or craft anything to sell for a living. It's far more likely to have a realistic understanding of materials and physics if you've worked with those materials for many years and learned the capabilities and limitations of it.
I loved steel/metalworking since I can remember. My dad was the VP of a tool and die shop in the Midwest when I was a kid so I ended up spending a lot of time at their shop. It was a shop that you'd expect to find building fabrication tools anywhere through the 20th century with milling machines, lathes, drill presses, hydraulic presses, press brakes, bandsaws, every type of welding machine, and much more. There were many times when I would spend entire days at the shop just observing what all the guys were doing and they taught me the basics of pretty much all of the fabrication processes. In so doing, a lot of the guys there could tell you almost every single attribute of every type of steel that rolled in the shop. Hell, they even had a building (that used to be the main shop until they bought the larger building next door) completely dedicated to painting that a couple guys used to repaint old project cars.
But growing up in a shop like that taught me a LOT about fabrication and material properties. There aren't a ton of 12 year olds that could run a manual mill, lathe, drill press, brake, or weld. Those guys even taught me about forging and heat treating different types of steel. But I was able to find something that I loved doing. It's just a shame that metal fabrication is so heavily discouraged nowadays. It's "more economical" to ship that shit overseas. But I have been able to apply some of that knowledge into building firearms.
That was all a very long-winded way of saying that I wish people had any level of appreciation or respect for the various metals, steels, and alloys. Obviously having armor and weapons both made of steel means that you're likely to end in a draw if you expect to defeat the armor. But chopping through the armor was never the point. Since plate armor needs to be fitted to the user, the steel being used will be relatively close to the body/skin. The best way to defeat that armor that doesn't require cutting it apart is to crush it. Since the steel armor is form fit to the user, there isn't a lot of extra space around it if it should deform. So using a weapon that is capable of crushing the plates inward means that it could restrict movement of, or possibly puncture, the skin underneath the crumpled armor. Hitting joints would be especially effective as the opponent becomes severely restricted in movement. That also gives you more time to find a gap in the armor in which to plunge your blade (spear, axe, sword, dagger, etc.)
Very cool stuff, Mr. Easton
I don’t know the proper way to ask you a question so I’ll shout it into the comments… I’ve been forging my own Lucerne hammer and it has gotten me thinking very much about the placement of languets on pole arms. Facing with the hammer head, perpendicular to the hammer head,over the hammer head or under the hammer head. I see several ways to do it, and advantages and disadvantages for use and forging it each way. I was curious what historical pieces have shown and what your take on the matter is. Ideally all sides of the haft would have that extra protection, but if you could only cover two opposite sides, which ones would you pick and why?
How about discussing the medieval artwork showing swords cutting through helmets.
The spirit of Michael Bay is eldritch and eternal, if it looks cool people will depict it, no matter how realistic it is.
Well first of all it is ART not always the artist wants or is capable of depicting things realistically.
But also a helm could be split by a sword. Imagine a situation where the helmet is of poor quality steel and manufacturing while the striking sword is of really good quality steel and manufacturing.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis yeah, a lot of helms were made in 2 or 4 pieces and riveted together. And if what is shown actually happened, who knows how many times the helmet was struck before the rivets failed.
I'm going to need and entire video of Matt struggling to get out of armor one-handed.
It wasn't just tanks that got armour in WW2. Just before the Arnhem operation the 1st Airborne Reconnaissance regiment of the 1st Airborne Div were issued with body armour made of steel plates backed by padding. This was effective at stopping 9mm rounds and grenade splinters, but not rifle calibre rounds.
But Matt, you can always defeat armour by Ending Him Rightly.
A bokken is just a baseball bat that is optimized for swinging even harder, faster, and more quickly.
Explains Ohtani!
They’re also really interesting to compare, like, each clearly designed to transfer force in a specific and different way.
Bludgeoning damage, love that type of war sword, like the 'ZT Deuce III'
Absolutely unhinged opening, 10/10.
_"CAN swords cut through ARMOR?? No they CAN'T! Or CAN they?!? Basically NO!"_
That made me laugh.
Imagine how cool it will be if modern science comes up with a new high-tech padding that is so good that you could wear a thin layer of it under plate armor and then go full speed sparring with swords and other medieval weapons without suffering concussions (or have just the amount of padding to give the percussive power that boxers take) and broken bones. New sports would be born.
8:25 Ahh the infamous anonymous Bolognese sauce... 😂
Against armour, impulse (f=m*a) is your friend. The resultant acceleration can break someones neck, bones, or “just” shear off his or her tendons, give them a concussion, and many more nasty injuries with long-lasting effects.
No need to cut through a knights head armour if you can accelerate it - and the brain inside - by a few metres per second squared in a tenth of a second or less.
Look at what brain injuries people can suffer from playing American Football, even with that helmet. I think there is even a movie about that.
Or what head injuries traffic accidents can cause on motorcyclists.
I think people often conflate cutting through or piercing armour with doing damage. You can very well not be able to pierce an armour from a cavalry lance charge, but the impact force could still mean concussion, dislocation or internal hemorrhage, and death......
So a blow from a heavy blade might not cut through armour, but it doesn't mean that it won't do damage.
Ww2 soviet engineers wore an armoured breastplate in order to protect their torsos (and therefore most primary organs) from small arms fire and shrapnel. This enabled them to get into the most effective range for their weaponry, namely the ppsh and flamethrower (plus bomb dogs 😂)
I'm really hoping one day you'll touch on ashigaru infantry tactics. Wait till your average person finds how they actually used polearms in formation almost totally opposite to pike formation tactics in Europe.
Might not cut through armor, but cuts through peasents like a charm
that's my thought. Also the legs horses, and maybe necks too if they aren't armored
A certain US generals name just got a lot cooler.
In order to potentially cut through plate armor you basically need a really really really good sword vs a really really really crappy suit of plate armor but still even in those perfect ideal circumstances it might very well not even happen.
How does this compare with period art and tapestry that depicts swords cutting into helmets? Are they misleading artistic license or was it something that did happen on the battlefield. What about The Bruce ax splitting the helmet of Henry de Bohun? Are they accurate stories?
Artist might not always have intended or been capable of depicting reality.
Also a very poor quality helmet could be cut by a heavier high quality sword.
I don't know about the story you mention but since axes concentrate their mass at the end that gets swung around they impact with much more momentum then a swordblade and also might have better splitting edgegeomitry then a blade meant for finer cutting.
Based on your recent videos it would seem a more nuisance classification for swords for fully armoured soldiers would not be as a “backup” or “secondary” weapon but a secondary primary weapon?
That in many situation it would be favoured depending on who the soldiers were facing.
Where are backup weapon would imply it is only ever used in emergency
British man hits his own head and proceeds to explain...my favourite show...
That opening. So nostalgic. Anyone still remember the "Men at work-down under" meme?
Are the peaks on the spine of the blade made for biting into the armor when striking on that side so you don't ruin edged belly of the blade?
That pole axe is my fav