Toby's eyes - thousand yard stare. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe - armigeri on fire on the walls of Verona, I've watched cannon-fire glitter in the dark at the siege of Orleans...time stands still and those moments will never be lost. Rain nor tears nor blood will wash them away." - Running with Blades 1482 by Ruitger de Hower personal account. :P
+RyanRyzzo I was gonna say it seemed like Matt was getting turned on by the armour lol. Wonderful quote by the way. Cannon-fire glitter sounds beautifully terrifying
+RyanRyzzo Andy I can't find that book anywhere. I google it and it's just a bunch of shoes. I assume the quote was the inspiration for the bladerunner one.
it's blued.. a controlled heat produces a certain colour in the steel..basically the same as thing as a discoloured stainless steel or chrome exhaust pipe on a motorbike..
9 років тому+8
Ok. Matt, this guy is awsome. Thanks for sharing !
+scholagladiatoria Until 15 minutes ago I KNEW that "French" knights at Agincourt have been mowed down by English archers firing arrows in an ark at them... If somebody with less integrity said to me what I just heard I would possibly call them idiots... Funny thing that knowledge.
I recall that Tobias stated that from first-hand accounts that were documented - arrows were not rained down in random arcs but rather arrows were aimed and fired fairly close and more in line with the level of the ground. We see raining arrows in countless movies, but it seems that those are not very accurate depictions of what actually took place.
Thanks for this, just got back from London and visiting the Wallace Collection, nowhere near enough time for everything there (just the arms and armour, forgetting all of the other amazing pieces) and will return as soon as able. Wouldn't have known about this exhibition if not for your channel.
Is there a way of checking if I can drop in on one of your classes if I'm in London? I'm from the channel islands, we have a small EHCG chapter here and it would be great to see what you guys are doing. I probably wouldn't be able to bring any kit though.
Thanks for posting; this is certainly a must-see for anyone hoping to dispell a few myths about Agincourt and medieval warfare in general. I look forward to more!
+Tullio238 My Grandad used to take me! I made the mistake of taking the wife to The Wallace Collection and The British Museum for her birthday! Lets just say she was underwhelmed!
9 років тому+1
This was extremely informative. Thanks Matt. I'm looking for to see part two.
Sir Toby is like my favorite armor expert, ever! He's my inspiration for continuing to study history, despite all the people saying I'd do well in science or art. I want to surround myself with historical arms and armor. The fanboy in me just won't calm down..!
Thanks, Matt. Awesome video. Looking forward to the sequel, and maybe more like it in the future. Wasn't Capwell one of those involved with moving Richard III?
+UNIDEN2211 I believe shields fell out of use with full plate armor. What is the point in having yer another protection? Two handed swords became also popular when armor developed beyond mail.
2 роки тому
This rather old video holds up well. Nice to see how much further the knowledge about the topics discussed has come since then in the publi domain. At least here on youtibe
" 100% armor is locking yourself in a bank vault and not telling anybody you´re there" - I absolutely love Mr. Capwell´s way of making his points. He´s a great narrator.
One thing that I think is not often talked about in comparison to the arrows being able to penetrate the armour, but that the amount of arrows coming down makes the opposing force not want to advance. As Tobias has said, it's a numbers game. Eventually one or two of those arrows are going to defeat your armour. Just have to make your opponent hesitate even a little bit and that can make a difference.
I really enjoyed this video very much!!! I always liked the "pig-faced" Hounskull Bascinet. I hope to one day visit the Wallace collection, so far I have looked at their pieces on their website...Absolutely fascinating!!! Kudos Matt!!!
Finally got around to watching these. Fascinating stuff, especially for someone whose primary interest has for the longest time been warfare in the age of high explosives. Just a slight diversion to the topic, the bit about military leaders of the time of Agincourt and afterwards becoming of effective military archery being a numbers game as well as the concerns of the French about the sheer volume of projectiles coming at them, bring to mind the conclusions and rationale that were again arrived at by some 500 years later and would lead to guns like the mg-42 and m/31 Suomi and the principles and tactics of their effective use in combat. Be it making hitting something within a certain window of opportunity more likely or the suppressive effect that a volume of projectiles coming right at a target has on its behavior.
In any kind of prolonged war or battle, numbers are proven to be the deciding factor. That said, it is also very true that men fighting to get home are quite fierce.
When an arrow gains "purchase" it not only increase the chance of penetrating the armor(not only on the helm but also all other semi openings). But more so it gains the opportunity to deliver it's momentum/kinetic energy to the target instead of glancing of. (Speaking as a reenactor who received arrows) this makes a huge difference to the target (me)
A more interesting question would be when does longbow arrows penetrate different types/quality/thickness of armor? If you have armor of good quality with less impurities such as slag and enough carbon to increase rockwell hardness during heat treatment, together with adequate thickness and shape (eye slits etc.) covering almost the entire body, it will withstand longbow arrows without doubt. But how many had this type of armor? Did technology at the time enable mass production of armor like this? What was the poundage of the bows in use? 110 lbs? 130 lbs? 150 lbs? 175 lbs? According to sources on Henry VIII you had to be able to shoot a given distance at age 21, and to achieve this consistently it takes a 130 lbs bow. Also, the majority of the bows on board Mary Rose was between 150-160 lbs and a few in the 170 lbs range. What type of arrowheads did they use? Quarrel bodkins also knowns as type 9a? What was the quality of these arrowheads in comparison to armor? How much kinetic energy will an quarter pound arrow like this deliver on target when put to flight with bows between 110-175 lbs? Is the 9a designed the way it is because they wanted the cutting edges to go trough textile armor and the sturdiness to wedge through the plate all in one? How about the length of the head? is it there to enable deep enough penetration? What was the thickness of armor on different bodyparts? You need slightly more than 3 times the kinetic energy to penetrate a 2 mm plate in comparison to a 1 mm plate. We know that the heaviest bows could, with a quarter pound arrow, reach about 160 J at point blank. Accroding to i.imgur.com/ncphwV2.jpg a 2 mm plate of quality ** would be defeated, even at 30 degrees, point blank. I do not own the book this is from so if anyone does I would be interested in knownig what appendix 5 and 6 say about the quality of the armor. It's The Knight and the Blast Furnace by Allan Williams. When we have established complete answers to all of these questions and more, and partly we have, we know when arrows penetrate armor. That's the interesting part, if you ask me. The sources clearly stat that people did die in huge numbers on the battlefield. Clifford Roger's article is a really interesting read. Google The Efficasy of the english longbow: A reply to Kelly DeVries. It's a must-read for everyone.
Very good questions! There is a lot of books about battles. A little bit less about history of weapons but I would like to see some about history of arms manufacturing technology , such as material quality, metal forming, welding, etc..
I think Toby Capwell missed a point in his explanation about the French concern over arrows hitting their eyeslits and the sides of the visors: He pointed out the danger that the eyeslits, breath holes and visor hinges form "rough spots" on the otherwise smooth glancing surface of the armour that an arrow might "grip" long enough to transmit its force INTO (and therefore possibly THROUGH) the armour instead of bouncing off. This creates a real danger that an arrow might punch right through at these points. However, there would have been a secondary danger from arrow strikes there that might actually have been even greater: shattering arrows. An arrow that DIDN'T punch through but didn't glance off completely would often shatter. Not a big deal with an arrow hitting elsewhere -- wood splinters stuck in the joints of your armour and maybe working their way into your gambeson could be a bit disconcerting and possibly somewhat uncomfortable. But on the visor -- wood splinters travelling at slow speeds with little force but doing so directly in line with your eyeballs... Not good. You may well cover this in the next part, but it seems to me that English military archery at battles like Agincourt was designed to have an impact even on those enemy knights who weren't directly wounded. There seem to be varying opinions on how bruising it would be to be hit by dozens or even hundreds of arrows while wearing plate armour. However, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the arrowstorm forced the knights to advance "all buttoned up". Without the rain of arrows, the French could have advanced with their visors open - breathing freely and seeing clearly - until just outside polearm range. That extra 300 to 500 metre slog through the mud humping a full load of armour and weapons while in a close, hot, oxygen-deprived atmosphere probably exhausted many of the French knights before they ever even came to blows with the English -- who COULD leave THEIR visors open for full fresh-air and clear vision until seconds before the clash...
" That extra 300 to 500 metre slog through the mud humping a full load of armour and weapons while in a close, hot, oxygen-deprived atmosphere probably exhausted many of the French knights before they ever even came to blows with the English -- who COULD leave THEIR visors open for full fresh-air and clear vision until seconds before the clash..." That is the traditionally accepted view as to how Henry managed to hold his own against the French vanguard long enough for his archers to empty their quivers and join the fray (which won him the day). They were grossly outnumbered and in weaker health vs. the French noble knights.
300-500m is battle rifle range, not longbow. If you shoot up into the air (which they probably didn´t), you´ll get maybe something like 240 yards out of them. For direct fire, I´d say anything beyond maybe 70 yards starts to require so much elevation, the arrows start to come from above rather than from the front. Remember these bows were very strong, but not especially fast. They were built strong to lob 1200 grain projectiles at you, not to throw them super fast and super flat. Wooden longbows rarely have projectile velocities beyond 45m/sec. We tried shooting targets at 75m with modern glasfiber recurves and light target arrows (much faster system), and halfways, the arrows were a good 5-6m above ground. But anyway, yes, forcing the enemy to button up during their advance definitely gives you advantage. It is vitally important to see what your enemy is doing when you are advancing to contact, and you can´t do that with visor up and head bowed down.
Really interesting interview. I've read "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan. It has at least a chapter on Agincourt. I recommend that book to anyone with an interest in the battle. Keegan tries to give a sense of how and why the French died in large numbers and lost the battle. He says it was in part because there were so many of them in such a small space and they crowed each other out. The mass of french moving forward made it difficult for the front ranks to fight. They were slaughtered because they couldn't maneuver.
Loved this video, best yet!!! I have a question... If the slits of the helmet protect from straight on, but less from above, leaning forward closes the high angle but opens the forward one. If they were coming at my front shouldn't I look up and only tip my head forward when I thought the arrows were not coming or to take a quick check. Also the longbow is a weapon than takes a lot of physical training, not really an out and out volume of fire weapon because of that, If they wanted sheer numbers of arrows you could get more bows into less skilled hands to create more volume. Nicht war?
Just FYI, the particular account that Tobias Capwell is (I think) an account by Don Pero Nino in The Unconquered Knight. The book can be read on google books, the account of the raid on the English island starts on page 119.
the English used pikemen against heavy Calvary charges is what i was told on the main line and archers where used to flank heavy charges. The horses also wore armor.
Matt, I have a couple questions about swordsmanship. I know flourishes were done to show off the skill of the combatant but usually before the engagement, but were what I would call mini flourishes done in a break of combat to build momentum or break up the rhythm? The next question I have is about hand changes during a fight where one would switch from right to left or vice versa possibly as a deception from weak side to strong side, were they done?
Matt, do you or your colleague have any opinions about the way archers were deployed in formation? I've heard many times over the years this idea that the longbow was deployed in a deep formation and fired at a high arc in volleys, but I haven't seen the source material for that, and I'm highly skeptical. Bows take considerable space to use, and in a deep formation only the front ranks would be able to see anything. Furthermore firing at a high arc compounds the problem of being unable to penetrate plate at anything but the closest ranges. A brief rant about how long a bow can even be employed in a big battle: It seems to me that at Agincourt the English longbows were only able to sustain their fire for a considerable time because they were shooting in from the flanks and perhaps the French knights were mired and slowed to a crawl. Bows only have an effective range of a couple hundred yards, and can only pierce armor (I hesitate to use the word penetrate in the case of plate) at much shorter distances. Effective range could therefore be closed in less than a minute by infantry in most situations and by cavalry in a matter of seconds. Perhaps the decisive effect of the bow at Agincourt then was psychological, because it so harassed the advancing knights that they were in disorder by the time they reached the English positions and were unable to fight cohesively as a group.
I should go there next time I'm in London really missed out on that the last times. I'll try to visit England again in a few years if possible and if I do I'll make a point of taking a day or two to visit museums in London.
This may be covered in part 2 but what of the longbows effectiveness in the earlier century? Such as at battles like Neville's Cross, Sluys, Crécy, Najera, and Poitiers? When plate was not as developed at least in the areas it could protect. Was the longbow more feared during these times?
To be fair here, I would say Toby is correct when he says that the worst part for the French was when the arrows were hitting them head-on, but accounts of Agincourt also state that Henry V advanced his archers into range and got them to emplace their stakes after moving forward from the initial position. If they had moved too close, the French could have simply charged them down, but it also says that the arrows stung the French into advancing, not that they were taking massive losses in their initial position. To me, this would mean that the initial volleys would have been arriving in more of an arc, and more an insult to French pride than doing much harm other than to maybe disorder the cavalry. Then, once the French started to advance the full power of the bow took effect, where the French were indeed advancing into a hailstorm of arrows, causing many to stumble and fall, only to be crushed on the floor as others also fell on top of them even when not wounded, but simply because they were struggling to see far ahead due to lowering their heads as they advanced.
Capwell says the arrows were fired straight on, okay sure, but in a typical battle would archers ever arc their shots from behind other infantry (not while the friendly infantry was engaged)? Or would they just retreat behind said infantry when necessary?
So does the Face of Battle do a good job of describing Agincourt? It defined my view of the battle, but if Keegan is off base with the "horsies won't charge massed infantry" thing is he off base on everything else?
Does anyone get the feeling that they've seen Tobias Capwell somewhere before? Something about his voice especially is familiar was he a documentary host or something?
While knights were wearing plate armor what were the common French soldiers wearing in this time period (Agincourt until the end of the war)? Were they still stuck with gambesons or were some of them wearing mail or some plate?
Hi there! I know this probably is a bit out of context and sorry for that, but I was browsing through the photos in the Schola Gladiatoria webpage gallery (the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna album) and I found an image of a medieval mechanical breastplate. I was just wondering what was it used for and how? Cheers!
You got lucky that this guy has at least an ounce of personality; you could have gotten some absolutely dull and impassionate man/woman as is usually the case with museum visits, unfortunately... I like that he enjoys talking about this stuff like you do :D Had you ever met before this or did you know of him?
+Christian Rankin Yeah, one of the concerns I have with guest speakers is that they're often not very interesting to listen to. This was very much not the case, so props to him.
tl;dr: Questions at the bottom. Thanks for the awesome video. Could we get more like that with actual armor on display? Also your friend seems awesome. My favourite novels are about the period, and really well researched in regards to politics, every day life etc. But in regard to warfare, they arent, which I only notice now when reading them again after watching your videos. Its really a bit sad reading about people speaking to each other through visors constantly and going on message missions with full armor (alone). I also have a few questions: If the helmets had slits that are slightly tilted upside (the simpleness always shocks me: Tilt your head forward and you can see, tilt it upward for protection), isnt it counterproductive to bow your head into the arrows, since it opens up the slits more? Also at what distance did they start shooting? And what about the horses? I know its no problem getting up in armor when you fell down, but falling down from a horse must at least take out the rider for the next few minutes or so (if he didnt break his neck or other bones when falling or the other horses trampling over him). Also I imagine that killing a few horses in the front row must become quite a problem for the following riders, depending on how packed their formations were? How dense were formations? Sorry for the long comment.
Very interesting to hear about the direct fire from the archers as opposed to the plunging barrages usually depicted in movies etc. but surely this must mean that the French Knight's horses were well armored in front at least to not be riddled with arrows and incapacitated, horses being skittish creatures normally, even more so when getting shot by dozens of arrows.
I can imagine a lot of their horses fell to those dense waves of arrows as well. Men can be seriously injured or trapped underneath their horses should it go down. Not to mention being trampled upon by the armored wave coming behind them. That's one possibility of how so many French knights were killed during the melee or taken prisoner.
A naive question I wondered about Agincourt: Was the kinetic energy from multiple arrow strikes enough to unbalance and then unseat / trip an armoured knight? Then making him a trip hazard for his buddies?
But at some time in history did arrows were fired like we see in the movies? I means, the rain of arrows thing, or it was always point blank in a straight line?
Great video, very insightful. Personally, I thought that I was already aware of most of the misconceptions concerning medieval archery, but I was still surprised to hear Toby's theory about how English archers did not shoot at the french in a high arc. I had always thought that this was their main way of attack and that they only switched to direct, single-target shots when the enemy got really close. Is this topic still under debate or do the experts agree that high arc shooting was not as common as we thought?
Is a good piece of evidence for the theory of the arrows harming knights via the sides of the helmet the battle of Poitiers? As I understand during the battle the Black Prince re-manoeuvred his archers from the centre to the flanks as they were not inflicting enough damage on the French when firing at their front and instead chose to position them so that more of the fire would be hitting the French knights in the sides.
hey matt, I have a question about armour. In antiquity I've noticed some of the roman and greek armour being a actual full chest piece. the kind with the abs and the pecks carved into it. why did this not seem to carry on into the late roman empire and the dark ages? was it too difficult to make, or was it a lost art?
@@funnyguy5746 A coat of plates in iron is close to the ancient upper body armor. By the time that iron or steel breast plates (cuirass) were developed, the metal could be formed in shapes that gave space and rounded contours to shed arrows and hand weapon blows. As metallurgy improved and forging techniques improved, large single plates became possible that the 11th and 12th centuries could only dream of. And, of course, fashion made its presence seen on the armors of the wealthy, copied by the less wealthy where they could. The Battle of Visby is a good example. Fought in 1361, the defenders were mostly farmers who were armed in various type of obsolete armors, such as mail hauberks, coats of plate and lamellar armors that used small plates riveted to fabric or leather, much of it being family heirlooms that were a century or more old. The attacking Danes were equiped in modern armors involving larger plates and better steel, and they won handily. Most of the armor on the dead defenders at Visby were buried in their armor, as the Danes figured that the armor as booty was not worth the effort of stripping it from the bodies.
I imagine the French horse's armour was less protective in it's coverage than a knight's. Once the horse was injured the rider would have to dismount. Also there must have been many horses that were spooked by just the sheer volume of arrows hitting their armour, even if it didn't injure them.
It's weird how everyone only talks about Agincourt, and forget the battle where the exact same happened, but with inversed outcome, the Battle of Castillon
Great video, Matt! There's a question I've been wondering for a long while in regards to plate armor. The early Imperial Legions used a form of plate armor from roughly the 1st through the 3rd Centuries AD. The well-known 'Lorica Segmentata', however, it was phased out around the mid-3rd to the 4th Century and we don't really see plate armor in the West for another thousand years or so, roughly. Do you have any information on why this is? Is it due to a decline in metallurgical skills? Cultural preference towards mail and other armors, a combination of the two or something else entirely? Thanks for your time!
+Daniel Maguire I read that the main reason was that the knowledge to mass produce large sheets of iron was lost and was only re-invented hundreds years later by the Milanese.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Toby's eyes - thousand yard stare.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe - armigeri on fire on the walls of Verona, I've watched cannon-fire glitter in the dark at the siege of Orleans...time stands still and those moments will never be lost. Rain nor tears nor blood will wash them away." - Running with Blades 1482 by Ruitger de Hower personal account.
:P
+RyanRyzzo I noticed that too.
+RyanRyzzo That reference was perfect.
+thesamsin Meh.
+RyanRyzzo I was gonna say it seemed like Matt was getting turned on by the armour lol. Wonderful quote by the way. Cannon-fire glitter sounds beautifully terrifying
+RyanRyzzo Andy I can't find that book anywhere. I google it and it's just a bunch of shoes. I assume the quote was the inspiration for the bladerunner one.
Bahaha when Mr. Capwell starts speaking and has an American accent, caught me off guard.
Matt ventures out of the house, nice. Looking forward to part 2.
+Muazen Part 2 will be entilted "Matt goes to the grocery store and buys stuff".
+iopklmification I would totally watch that.
I went to the Wallace collection recently and it is truly amazing to see some of the military equipment present in their collection.
that black and gold armor at the beginning of the video is gorgeous
Joshua Carr the armorer made that probably died of mercury poisoning due to the gilding process.
Joshua Carr _ It was Italian armour. Heat treated, what we would call 'face hardened' today. Highly prized, very expensive.
it's blued.. a controlled heat produces a certain colour in the steel..basically the same as thing as a discoloured stainless steel or chrome exhaust pipe on a motorbike..
Ok. Matt, this guy is awsome. Thanks for sharing !
+scholagladiatoria Until 15 minutes ago I KNEW that "French" knights at Agincourt have been mowed down by English archers firing arrows in an ark at them... If somebody with less integrity said to me what I just heard I would possibly call them idiots... Funny thing that knowledge.
I recall that Tobias stated that from first-hand accounts that were documented - arrows were not rained down in random arcs but rather arrows were aimed and fired fairly close and more in line with the level of the ground. We see raining arrows in countless movies, but it seems that those are not very accurate depictions of what actually took place.
13:50 "We're gonna come back for the second part of this video in a minute..." - Matt Easton, 4 days ago.
Thanks for this, just got back from London and visiting the Wallace Collection, nowhere near enough time for everything there (just the arms and armour, forgetting all of the other amazing pieces) and will return as soon as able. Wouldn't have known about this exhibition if not for your channel.
+Jake Norman Great to hear :-)
Is there a way of checking if I can drop in on one of your classes if I'm in London? I'm from the channel islands, we have a small EHCG chapter here and it would be great to see what you guys are doing. I probably wouldn't be able to bring any kit though.
Thanks for posting; this is certainly a must-see for anyone hoping to dispell a few myths about Agincourt and medieval warfare in general. I look forward to more!
Great! Looking forward to the next installment and future interviews.
:D Awesome! Capwell and Easton in the same video? My life has been made!
Thanks for taking us along.
I was watching the clock on the wall to see any sneaky cuts only to realise that clock had stopped :-D
+Pyronaut44 We stopped it just for you.
they are actually speaking really, really fast. The video is slowed down.
+scholagladiatoria it took me far longer to realise that it had stopped than it should have done!
+Pyronaut44 I didn't even notice the clock until I read this as I was focusing on the American Accent...
+Manic Demise They are also adjusted the pitch of their voices to compensate for the speed up they would under go later.
The Wallace Collection is my favorite place to visit in London! More valuable artifacts per square foot than the British Museum!
+Nick M It's a great place to visit. I went there on a date one - being torn between whether to look more at the artefacts or her
+Tullio238 My Grandad used to take me! I made the mistake of taking the wife to The Wallace Collection and The British Museum for her birthday! Lets just say she was underwhelmed!
This was extremely informative. Thanks Matt. I'm looking for to see part two.
Sir Toby is like my favorite armor expert, ever! He's my inspiration for continuing to study history, despite all the people saying I'd do well in science or art. I want to surround myself with historical arms and armor. The fanboy in me just won't calm down..!
A very nuanced discussion. Probably the best about this topic on YT. Will save to redirect others to this one, if need be.
Thanks, Matt. Awesome video. Looking forward to the sequel, and maybe more like it in the future. Wasn't Capwell one of those involved with moving Richard III?
+Ty Johnston Yes he was.
+UNIDEN2211 I believe shields fell out of use with full plate armor. What is the point in having yer another protection? Two handed swords became also popular when armor developed beyond mail.
This rather old video holds up well. Nice to see how much further the knowledge about the topics discussed has come since then in the publi domain. At least here on youtibe
The start of a really excellent series
OMG OMG! Thanks, Matt, on behalf of everyone not fortunate enough to live close to a museum with an arms and armor collection!
This is excellent content and the type of thing that I subscribed for. Extremely enlightening and entertaining. Keep this type coming!
" 100% armor is locking yourself in a bank vault and not telling anybody you´re there" - I absolutely love Mr. Capwell´s way of making his points. He´s a great narrator.
Wonderful History! thank you Master Easton!
Very informative and educational, thanks for bringing us these great videos Matt! I would give a leg to attend the study day!
One thing that I think is not often talked about in comparison to the arrows being able to penetrate the armour, but that the amount of arrows coming down makes the opposing force not want to advance. As Tobias has said, it's a numbers game. Eventually one or two of those arrows are going to defeat your armour. Just have to make your opponent hesitate even a little bit and that can make a difference.
Tobias clearly hasn't played with Age of Empires
Jokes aside, I learned so much stuff here, thank you
Well done, Matt.
I really enjoyed this video very much!!! I always liked the "pig-faced" Hounskull Bascinet. I hope to one day visit the Wallace collection, so far I have looked at their pieces on their website...Absolutely fascinating!!! Kudos Matt!!!
Tobias Capwell is a great presenter. The documentary he was in about Henry the 8ths Royal Armory was pretty awesome.
That greenwich harness in the beginning...amazing.
Finally got around to watching these. Fascinating stuff, especially for someone whose primary interest has for the longest time been warfare in the age of high explosives. Just a slight diversion to the topic, the bit about military leaders of the time of Agincourt and afterwards becoming of effective military archery being a numbers game as well as the concerns of the French about the sheer volume of projectiles coming at them, bring to mind the conclusions and rationale that were again arrived at by some 500 years later and would lead to guns like the mg-42 and m/31 Suomi and the principles and tactics of their effective use in combat. Be it making hitting something within a certain window of opportunity more likely or the suppressive effect that a volume of projectiles coming right at a target has on its behavior.
Watching Mr. Capwell standing back and just nodding while Mr. Easton rambles on is unexpectedly hilarious.
This is awesome, thanks Matt.
Great work Matt.
In any kind of prolonged war or battle, numbers are proven to be the deciding factor. That said, it is also very true that men fighting to get home are quite fierce.
Great work Matt!
That battle is on my birthday 🥳! I was sooo happy when I found this out lol 😂
Great idea to visit WC and talk with Mr Capwell!
This dude should start his own channel; great insights!
When an arrow gains "purchase" it not only increase the chance of penetrating the armor(not only on the helm but also all other semi openings). But more so it gains the opportunity to deliver it's momentum/kinetic energy to the target instead of glancing of.
(Speaking as a reenactor who received arrows) this makes a huge difference to the target (me)
Matt this video kicked ass! Awesome. The other guy in the video has great insights. I await part 2. :)
Great interview with good info as always
I just love the goofy little smile on many basinet helmets
Please can we have more content with Tobias, he is an excellent expert. Thanks Matt.
Great talk!
A more interesting question would be when does longbow arrows penetrate different types/quality/thickness of armor? If you have armor of good quality with less impurities such as slag and enough carbon to increase rockwell hardness during heat treatment, together with adequate thickness and shape (eye slits etc.) covering almost the entire body, it will withstand longbow arrows without doubt. But how many had this type of armor? Did technology at the time enable mass production of armor like this? What was the poundage of the bows in use? 110 lbs? 130 lbs? 150 lbs? 175 lbs? According to sources on Henry VIII you had to be able to shoot a given distance at age 21, and to achieve this consistently it takes a 130 lbs bow. Also, the majority of the bows on board Mary Rose was between 150-160 lbs and a few in the 170 lbs range.
What type of arrowheads did they use? Quarrel bodkins also knowns as type 9a? What was the quality of these arrowheads in comparison to armor? How much kinetic energy will an quarter pound arrow like this deliver on target when put to flight with bows between 110-175 lbs? Is the 9a designed the way it is because they wanted the cutting edges to go trough textile armor and the sturdiness to wedge through the plate all in one? How about the length of the head? is it there to enable deep enough penetration?
What was the thickness of armor on different bodyparts? You need slightly more than 3 times the kinetic energy to penetrate a 2 mm plate in comparison to a 1 mm plate. We know that the heaviest bows could, with a quarter pound arrow, reach about 160 J at point blank. Accroding to i.imgur.com/ncphwV2.jpg a 2 mm plate of quality ** would be defeated, even at 30 degrees, point blank. I do not own the book this is from so if anyone does I would be interested in knownig what appendix 5 and 6 say about the quality of the armor. It's The Knight and the Blast Furnace by Allan Williams.
When we have established complete answers to all of these questions and more, and partly we have, we know when arrows penetrate armor. That's the interesting part, if you ask me. The sources clearly stat that people did die in huge numbers on the battlefield. Clifford Roger's article is a really interesting read. Google The Efficasy of the english longbow: A reply to Kelly DeVries. It's a must-read for everyone.
Very good questions! There is a lot of books about battles. A little bit less about history of weapons but I would like to see some about history of arms manufacturing technology , such as material quality, metal forming, welding, etc..
Is that a Peter Fuller bascinet? I still remember the absolutely exquisite reproduction of the George Clifford armor!
I think Toby Capwell missed a point in his explanation about the French concern over arrows hitting their eyeslits and the sides of the visors: He pointed out the danger that the eyeslits, breath holes and visor hinges form "rough spots" on the otherwise smooth glancing surface of the armour that an arrow might "grip" long enough to transmit its force INTO (and therefore possibly THROUGH) the armour instead of bouncing off. This creates a real danger that an arrow might punch right through at these points.
However, there would have been a secondary danger from arrow strikes there that might actually have been even greater: shattering arrows. An arrow that DIDN'T punch through but didn't glance off completely would often shatter. Not a big deal with an arrow hitting elsewhere -- wood splinters stuck in the joints of your armour and maybe working their way into your gambeson could be a bit disconcerting and possibly somewhat uncomfortable. But on the visor -- wood splinters travelling at slow speeds with little force but doing so directly in line with your eyeballs... Not good.
You may well cover this in the next part, but it seems to me that English military archery at battles like Agincourt was designed to have an impact even on those enemy knights who weren't directly wounded. There seem to be varying opinions on how bruising it would be to be hit by dozens or even hundreds of arrows while wearing plate armour. However, there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that the arrowstorm forced the knights to advance "all buttoned up". Without the rain of arrows, the French could have advanced with their visors open - breathing freely and seeing clearly - until just outside polearm range. That extra 300 to 500 metre slog through the mud humping a full load of armour and weapons while in a close, hot, oxygen-deprived atmosphere probably exhausted many of the French knights before they ever even came to blows with the English -- who COULD leave THEIR visors open for full fresh-air and clear vision until seconds before the clash...
" That extra 300 to 500 metre slog through the mud humping a full load of armour and weapons while in a close, hot, oxygen-deprived atmosphere probably exhausted many of the French knights before they ever even came to blows with the English -- who COULD leave THEIR visors open for full fresh-air and clear vision until seconds before the clash..."
That is the traditionally accepted view as to how Henry managed to hold his own against the French vanguard long enough for his archers to empty their quivers and join the fray (which won him the day). They were grossly outnumbered and in weaker health vs. the French noble knights.
300-500m is battle rifle range, not longbow. If you shoot up into the air (which they probably didn´t), you´ll get maybe something like 240 yards out of them. For direct fire, I´d say anything beyond maybe 70 yards starts to require so much elevation, the arrows start to come from above rather than from the front.
Remember these bows were very strong, but not especially fast. They were built strong to lob 1200 grain projectiles at you, not to throw them super fast and super flat. Wooden longbows rarely have projectile velocities beyond 45m/sec. We tried shooting targets at 75m with modern glasfiber recurves and light target arrows (much faster system), and halfways, the arrows were a good 5-6m above ground.
But anyway, yes, forcing the enemy to button up during their advance definitely gives you advantage. It is vitally important to see what your enemy is doing when you are advancing to contact, and you can´t do that with visor up and head bowed down.
Really interesting interview. I've read "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan. It has at least a chapter on Agincourt. I recommend that book to anyone with an interest in the battle. Keegan tries to give a sense of how and why the French died in large numbers and lost the battle. He says it was in part because there were so many of them in such a small space and they crowed each other out. The mass of french moving forward made it difficult for the front ranks to fight. They were slaughtered because they couldn't maneuver.
+Subsidiarity3 I would take anything Keegan said about combat with a grain of salt. He was a much better sociologist than military scientist.
Amazing video. Very educational.
Loved this video, best yet!!! I have a question... If the slits of the helmet protect from straight on, but less from above, leaning forward closes the high angle but opens the forward one. If they were coming at my front shouldn't I look up and only tip my head forward when I thought the arrows were not coming or to take a quick check. Also the longbow is a weapon than takes a lot of physical training, not really an out and out volume of fire weapon because of that, If they wanted sheer numbers of arrows you could get more bows into less skilled hands to create more volume. Nicht war?
This guy reminds me of a young Ron Swanson
Just FYI, the particular account that Tobias Capwell is (I think) an account by Don Pero Nino in The Unconquered Knight. The book can be read on google books, the account of the raid on the English island starts on page 119.
Really great video!
the English used pikemen against heavy Calvary charges is what i was told on the main line and archers where used to flank heavy charges. The horses also wore armor.
Awesome video thank you!
Matt, I have a couple questions about swordsmanship. I know flourishes were done to show off the skill of the combatant but usually before the engagement, but were what I would call mini flourishes done in a break of combat to build momentum or break up the rhythm? The next question I have is about hand changes during a fight where one would switch from right to left or vice versa possibly as a deception from weak side to strong side, were they done?
Amazing video, even by your (high) standards. That's a particularly interesting subject.
Great video, Matt! :D
Matt, do you or your colleague have any opinions about the way archers were deployed in formation? I've heard many times over the years this idea that the longbow was deployed in a deep formation and fired at a high arc in volleys, but I haven't seen the source material for that, and I'm highly skeptical. Bows take considerable space to use, and in a deep formation only the front ranks would be able to see anything. Furthermore firing at a high arc compounds the problem of being unable to penetrate plate at anything but the closest ranges.
A brief rant about how long a bow can even be employed in a big battle: It seems to me that at Agincourt the English longbows were only able to sustain their fire for a considerable time because they were shooting in from the flanks and perhaps the French knights were mired and slowed to a crawl. Bows only have an effective range of a couple hundred yards, and can only pierce armor (I hesitate to use the word penetrate in the case of plate) at much shorter distances. Effective range could therefore be closed in less than a minute by infantry in most situations and by cavalry in a matter of seconds. Perhaps the decisive effect of the bow at Agincourt then was psychological, because it so harassed the advancing knights that they were in disorder by the time they reached the English positions and were unable to fight cohesively as a group.
Fantastic video. I was directed to this clip by Metatron. Loved both content.
A very interesting video. I enjoyed this.
I fucking love toby capwell holy shit this is awesome matt!!!
Great Information!
fantastic video,
This reminds me of your cameo in the Secrets of the Dead episode on Richard III.
+MoviMakr LOL, I was practically a ninja in that!
scholagladiatoria I know. I was like, "Wait. That's Matt in between the other guys." What exactly did you do on set?
I should go there next time I'm in London really missed out on that the last times. I'll try to visit England again in a few years if possible and if I do I'll make a point of taking a day or two to visit museums in London.
This was a good one.
This may be covered in part 2 but what of the longbows effectiveness in the earlier century? Such as at battles like Neville's Cross, Sluys, Crécy, Najera, and Poitiers? When plate was not as developed at least in the areas it could protect. Was the longbow more feared during these times?
Good vid thanks. I did wonder about the arrows taking the horses out though?
To be fair here, I would say Toby is correct when he says that the worst part for the French was when the arrows were hitting them head-on, but accounts of Agincourt also state that Henry V advanced his archers into range and got them to emplace their stakes after moving forward from the initial position. If they had moved too close, the French could have simply charged them down, but it also says that the arrows stung the French into advancing, not that they were taking massive losses in their initial position. To me, this would mean that the initial volleys would have been arriving in more of an arc, and more an insult to French pride than doing much harm other than to maybe disorder the cavalry. Then, once the French started to advance the full power of the bow took effect, where the French were indeed advancing into a hailstorm of arrows, causing many to stumble and fall, only to be crushed on the floor as others also fell on top of them even when not wounded, but simply because they were struggling to see far ahead due to lowering their heads as they advanced.
Capwell says the arrows were fired straight on, okay sure, but in a typical battle would archers ever arc their shots from behind other infantry (not while the friendly infantry was engaged)? Or would they just retreat behind said infantry when necessary?
So does the Face of Battle do a good job of describing Agincourt? It defined my view of the battle, but if Keegan is off base with the "horsies won't charge massed infantry" thing is he off base on everything else?
Does anyone get the feeling that they've seen Tobias Capwell somewhere before? Something about his voice especially is familiar was he a documentary host or something?
+drlaunisch He's been in lots of documentaries, yes.
Thanks very educational
While knights were wearing plate armor what were the common French soldiers wearing in this time period (Agincourt until the end of the war)? Were they still stuck with gambesons or were some of them wearing mail or some plate?
I love how he uses the historical context when really its all about drooling over some cool medieval stuff .
Mat, you look so happy. You just look like you're desperately trying to control your enthusiasm.
Keep up the good work.
great video.
Hi there! I know this probably is a bit out of context and sorry for that, but I was browsing through the photos in the Schola Gladiatoria webpage gallery (the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna album) and I found an image of a medieval mechanical breastplate. I was just wondering what was it used for and how? Cheers!
+MedicineManDude It was for jousting - a solid hit in the centre would result in parts flying off dramatically.
+scholagladiatoria Ok, so it was just for a better show so to speak. Thanks very much!
This was great
You got lucky that this guy has at least an ounce of personality; you could have gotten some absolutely dull and impassionate man/woman as is usually the case with museum visits, unfortunately...
I like that he enjoys talking about this stuff like you do :D Had you ever met before this or did you know of him?
+Christian Rankin Toby and I have known each other for about a decade, yes.
+Christian Rankin Yeah, one of the concerns I have with guest speakers is that they're often not very interesting to listen to. This was very much not the case, so props to him.
scholagladiatoria
Makes sense...
He probably is a swinger too..
+Another Duck yup
tl;dr: Questions at the bottom.
Thanks for the awesome video. Could we get more like that with actual armor on display?
Also your friend seems awesome.
My favourite novels are about the period, and really well researched in regards to politics, every day life etc. But in regard to warfare, they arent, which I only notice now when reading them again after watching your videos. Its really a bit sad reading about people speaking to each other through visors constantly and going on message missions with full armor (alone).
I also have a few questions: If the helmets had slits that are slightly tilted upside (the simpleness always shocks me: Tilt your head forward and you can see, tilt it upward for protection), isnt it counterproductive to bow your head into the arrows, since it opens up the slits more?
Also at what distance did they start shooting? And what about the horses? I know its no problem getting up in armor when you fell down, but falling down from a horse must at least take out the rider for the next few minutes or so (if he didnt break his neck or other bones when falling or the other horses trampling over him).
Also I imagine that killing a few horses in the front row must become quite a problem for the following riders, depending on how packed their formations were?
How dense were formations?
Sorry for the long comment.
I expect it's because most bascinet helmets had protrusions both above and below
Very interesting to hear about the direct fire from the archers as opposed to the plunging barrages usually depicted in movies etc. but surely this must mean that the French Knight's horses were well armored in front at least to not be riddled with arrows and incapacitated, horses being skittish creatures normally, even more so when getting shot by dozens of arrows.
+SODEMO2007 The French knights advanced on foot, I believe.
I can imagine a lot of their horses fell to those dense waves of arrows as well. Men can be seriously injured or trapped underneath their horses should it go down. Not to mention being trampled upon by the armored wave coming behind them. That's one possibility of how so many French knights were killed during the melee or taken prisoner.
Didn't they find that crowd dynamics and mud did more than the arrows ever could? I remember some show about that back in the day.
A naive question I wondered about Agincourt: Was the kinetic energy from multiple arrow strikes enough to unbalance and then unseat / trip an armoured knight? Then making him a trip hazard for his buddies?
Probably, if the arrows ever hit straight on. Thing is, the armor was rounded to deflect the arrows and so that rarely came to be
Were not many of the French and English effectively neighbours, brothers, uncles and so on at the time?
But at some time in history did arrows were fired like we see in the movies? I means, the rain of arrows thing, or it was always point blank in a straight line?
Great video, very insightful.
Personally, I thought that I was already aware of most of the misconceptions concerning medieval archery, but I was still surprised to hear Toby's theory about how English archers did not shoot at the french in a high arc.
I had always thought that this was their main way of attack and that they only switched to direct, single-target shots when the enemy got really close.
Is this topic still under debate or do the experts agree that high arc shooting was not as common as we thought?
See latest comment
could you recommend good books to read about medieval arms and armour?
Is a good piece of evidence for the theory of the arrows harming knights via the sides of the helmet the battle of Poitiers?
As I understand during the battle the Black Prince re-manoeuvred his archers from the centre to the flanks as they were not inflicting enough damage on the French when firing at their front and instead chose to position them so that more of the fire would be hitting the French knights in the sides.
+Frank Jeagar Yes, and Froissart specifically mentions the arrows hitting the French in their sides.
I wonder what effect the arrows had on the mechanics/joint movement of the armor.
hey matt, I have a question about armour. In antiquity I've noticed some of the roman and greek armour being a actual full chest piece. the kind with the abs and the pecks carved into it. why did this not seem to carry on into the late roman empire and the dark ages? was it too difficult to make, or was it a lost art?
I think it was left behind due to construction only being possible with soft metals
@@funnyguy5746 A coat of plates in iron is close to the ancient upper body armor. By the time that iron or steel breast plates (cuirass) were developed, the metal could be formed in shapes that gave space and rounded contours to shed arrows and hand weapon blows. As metallurgy improved and forging techniques improved, large single plates became possible that the 11th and 12th centuries could only dream of. And, of course, fashion made its presence seen on the armors of the wealthy, copied by the less wealthy where they could.
The Battle of Visby is a good example. Fought in 1361, the defenders were mostly farmers who were armed in various type of obsolete armors, such as mail hauberks, coats of plate and lamellar armors that used small plates riveted to fabric or leather, much of it being family heirlooms that were a century or more old. The attacking Danes were equiped in modern armors involving larger plates and better steel, and they won handily. Most of the armor on the dead defenders at Visby were buried in their armor, as the Danes figured that the armor as booty was not worth the effort of stripping it from the bodies.
I imagine the French horse's armour was less protective in it's coverage than a knight's. Once the horse was injured the rider would have to dismount. Also there must have been many horses that were spooked by just the sheer volume of arrows hitting their armour, even if it didn't injure them.
It's weird how everyone only talks about Agincourt, and forget the battle where the exact same happened, but with inversed outcome, the Battle of Castillon
Great video, Matt! There's a question I've been wondering for a long while in regards to plate armor. The early Imperial Legions used a form of plate armor from roughly the 1st through the 3rd Centuries AD. The well-known 'Lorica Segmentata', however, it was phased out around the mid-3rd to the 4th Century and we don't really see plate armor in the West for another thousand years or so, roughly. Do you have any information on why this is? Is it due to a decline in metallurgical skills? Cultural preference towards mail and other armors, a combination of the two or something else entirely? Thanks for your time!
+Sam “MrPercie” Percy
That's certainly possible, thanks for the reply!
+Daniel Maguire I read that the main reason was that the knowledge to mass produce large sheets of iron was lost and was only re-invented hundreds years later by the Milanese.
+Gloin79
Really? That's interesting, do you have a source for that so I can hunt down where it's from?
I read it in "Techniues of Medieval Armour Reproduction- The 14th Century" by Brian R. Price
Thanks! I'll check it out!
You make some very interesting vids.