Matt, I think part of the reason why the Arms & Armor dagger did so poorly, is because the chainmail they tested it against was resting on a large punching bag which had a lot of give to it. Consequently, a lot of the force of the dagger thrust was taken up by the flexing of the surface of the punching bag, and not by the chainmail itself. Likewise, I think part of the reason why Tod's dagger did so much better when you tested it, is because the materials you tested the dagger against, were resting on a piece of archery foam, which was far more rigid. Because the archery foam was more rigid, consequently far less of the force of your thrusts was taken up by the flexing of the archery foam, and far more of the force of your thrusts had to be taken up by the armor analogs you were testing the dagger against, which is why said armor analogs failed.
question is, which is more like a persons, muscled gnarley soldier would have different structure to a squidgy larper for example. lots of these tests leave the edges of the small test piece of chainmail loose, and they give and fly around....Todd does a great jo at minimising these otehr odd factors with his tests....
@@neoaliphant It's almost certainly true that the support material affects the test, and possible that even pretty small variations can have surprisingly large effects. The difference between someone being skinny, fat, or wearing gambeson or not, may be significant. Also, there's not really any firmness that's analogue to even a single individual; the belly is different from the chest, which is different from the armpit, which is different from the throat, etc.. Then there's the circumstances; standing, laying down, moving towards you, moving away, moving sideways... Covering all variations will be a major undertaking. For a start, just testing the presumed extremes, plus the presumed average, may be the way to go.
One thing that you haven't mentioned (well, mentioned, but only partially), but may be really important - Todd's dagger you used and Arms and Armor dagger are completely different daggers. Todd's dagger has thicker spine, larger rondels and thinner handle (at least this is my impression from two videos). And, as mentioned, hollow grind vs flat blade. What do I mean by that: Thicker spine leads to a different force distribution in the mail ring - with thicker spine distance between point where edge touches ring and where spine touches ring is smaller. This means that force that tries to bend ring has smaller lever and therefore there is lesser chance that ring bends and higher chance that edge cuts through it. Larger rondels and smaller grip means that more energy is transferred from hand into dagger and also into target. Or you can also say that whole system hand+dagger is more rigid and therefore is more efficient in transferring energy applied by your body to your hand. And crossection affects how exactly metal folds when it is cut - this may also affect the overall resistance on steel pate to a weapon. I would also add that cutting stuff (especially cutting a metal with other metal with a fast speed) is a big and deep scientific field in applied physics. *Everything* has an impact on cutting efficiency - tool material, it's hardness, shape, how if deforms under pressure, target viscosity, etc.
Agreed with all of the above. I have an unsubstantiated hunch that the material of Tod's dagger was also uniquely well suited to this test. I don't necessarily think we would have got the same result with a sharpened piece of 5160. But I might be wrong - we shall see :-)
@@scholagladiatoria Bloomery steel isn't necessarily bad. What it is, is INCONSISTENT. In a single batch of bloomery steel, there are going to be chunks that are absolute junk, and there will be some that are exceptional. Remember, tamahagane which is incredibly expensive and highly prized for making nihonto blades due to its high carbon content of up to 1.5%, is a hand-selected piece of artisanal bloomery steel.
@@dgmt1 Not gonna challenge your point, just want to add that any possible kind of mail was mostly likely made sometime by someone for some price point. So in those test of arms vs armor unless test is said to be against "the best armor of the period", than any result would be accurate. I would absolutely believe that cheap mail would fail against dedicated anti-mail weapon but hold against slashing hits. Also, while I here, want to mention that in russian historiography mail made from flat rings (presumably cut from sheet metal) is known to be a lot sturdier. It was also specifiacally called by german word "panzer". I wonder how would it hold against dedicated weapons compared to mail from wire rings.
I like to explain armor as goal keeper : as long as you do your part of the defense you don't need a lot for it to be effective, but it will fail if you don't assist it. Your tests with Tod showed that armors job isn't to fend off a "coup de grâce" once pined-down and defenseless. Waiting for a test with a similar set-up as you did for "longbow vs armor" ;)
The edge geometry on the rondel also seems to hint at it being made to snap/cut the chainmail as it is just larger than most standard loops so it would go into one, can have a concentrated pressure on it in a very gradually increasing angle that is ideal for shearing them. A double layered mail could possibly stop it from reaching as far in, by applying a second resistant layer, but I have doubts that it wouldnt still reach a damaging penetration depth, especially if we are talking about double mail on joints/neck, where you are probably more interested in some rigidity to protect from a "blunt-ed" blow crushing your windpipe rather than a dagger being used to nick something vital. The tests at A&A seemed to be done in a way that vastly favored the armor, both in what they were being done on (the bags had more give and were less representative of something you could penetrate) as well as being done with a different dagger that isnt made in and optimized to pierce mail.
The three big qualifiers you listed were exactly the three that sprang to my mind. Also, a later point you made is super obvious, yet still worth stating: rondel daggers wouldn't exist if they didn't work. One could even say, "if they didn't reliably work." One wouldn't bother buying and carrying a weapon that would fail more often than not; and we know that these daggers were not uncommon. Thanks for linking the other channel. I'm off to view that now.
There was a bit in the other video where the guys mentioned possibly getting only half-an-inch penetration, and I was forced to consider for a moment just how unhappy I would be with half-an-inch of steel stuck in my armpit. So 'working badly' in this context is still arguably extremely useful at the end of the day. And the best possible result of going through several different types of armour like it's just not there is just absurd, in the context of fighting a man who is borderline invulnerable to cutting blades. So another way of phrasing this is 'if it usually works *at all*, even a little bit, to any degree', you'd absolutely want to have one.
The A&A video had the maille backed with a punching bag. They tend to be stuffed with weird little shredded cloth balls and it can make them surprisingly difficult to stab into. Ive disected a few with a sword and im always surprised at how tough they actually are.
Great points, especially the last one! There _has_ to be a reason why this weapon was created and used, and used outside of any ceremonial/regulated duelling setting. If there's one thing humanity does well, it's weeding out things that don't aid in in the act of warfare.
Todd’s dagger was made from a forged billet of bloomery steel that had carbon folded into it. WHEN IT WAS HARDENED and then belt sanded if the steel was true steel (iron with a good carbon content) and the steel was actually hard then the sanding process would be producing massive showers of sparks every time it touched the belt. Yet this hardened dagger only mad a few sparks occasionally. The dagger wasn’t really hardened to what we would call hardened today. I concede the dagger was harder than it was prior to hardening though. So the dagger was made with a low grade version of bloomery steel. So a low grade version of steel of the day. The chain mail was average riveted mail that failed in the ring every time and never at the rivet. Todd very specifically said that it failed as if cut with a cold chisel. That’s a specific type of metal cutting that’s very efficient at cutting steel as opposed to stretching the ring till the spring snapped from being stretched too far. Also Matt is a ‘professional’ at using daggers amongst other things, to penetrate armour. So training counts as it gives you proper proven technique. The key points is A dagger replica of period dagger made with the materials of the day. B dagger used with training and excellent technique. C targets were equivalent to at least average armour components of the day. D the dagger style has a very gradual taper which is magnificent for spreading anything and also transferring all the energy from a long stab into a tiny area. E the hefty thickness of the blade wouldn’t bend hardly at all and since bending is a massive wast of energy and reduces the impact shock and it’s the impact shock that keys the point in and cold chisel cuts the initial breakthrough of the point means it very important. So this weapon was designed using actual combat feed back over a long period of time starting with a short sharp stick. So massive weapon refinement was made in its construction and in its use.
Seems that we're looking for a consistent answer to a question that doesn't have one? Perhaps depending on the mail or plate quality or the design and quality of the dagger different outcomes were a possibility? There was no universal standard for weapons and armour but rather a lot of variability depending on skill and budget, so it was about who was wearing or carrying the best quality and technology.
It would help if the rondel daggers could be compared, side by side: size of the grip, length of the blade, tapering and profile, overall mass... Then maybe compare the maille, ring dimensions, maybe if at all possible a scratch test for hardness etc. As is, there's too little solid date for any real conclusions.
8:43 Important point. Going along with that, we also know that treatises advised wrestling and stabbing into gaps in armoured dagger fighting, which they wouldn't have if rondel daggers were reliably able to penetrate plate armour in authentic conditions.
This has come up in different forms, but this is a maxim I've lived by since it was first taught to me (RIP Pat Rogers. Heaven is safer since you started training the angels.) Mission drives the gear. It is the go-to mantra when someone asks, what should I get, x, y or z. First, know your mission. What do you want it to do? That narrows the choices and eliminates the stuff that you like, or looks good, or is really cool, but can't do what you need it to do. Turning that around, the gear defines the mission. Truly, that's just another way of saying what you've done in your study of arms and armor. Keeping it to the Rondel dagger, the rondels protect the hand, not just against a weapon, but against slamming your hand or fingers against armor and injuring yourself. It makes it easier to grasp the dagger when wearing gauntlets or gloves because you can't hold it any other way. The blade shape dictates a thrusting weapon and the grip & rondels make thrusts easy, cuts difficult. They also dictate the type of thrust, i.e. really close quarters combat. Not an extended arm forming a straight line for a lunge. It's natural position is perpendicular to the lower arm, whether it is point up or point down. And the shape of the blade is essentially a spike. What do you do with spikes? You stick them in things. Yes, rondel daggers were worn when not in armor. But that doesn't mean they were preferred choice for unarmored combat. The answer is fairly simple (and if I'm wrong, then I'm a simpleton!), most people didn't have a lot of knives so they could choose which one for which activity. But if I defending with a knife and no one was in armor, a good long Bowie knife would be my choice. Yes, a rondel dagger is a good stabber, but no better than a Bowie or a long "Knightly" dagger (or the Holbein). And those other knives/daggers are far superior when it comes to cutting. The gear drives the mission. As you've shown, the rondel dagger was designed as an anti-armor weapon in close quarters. Any other use violates the premise of mission drives the gear. Ergo, they use for the other purposes because it's what they have and it is more important for it's primary use context.
Fascinating that one test raises so much questions, mindbogling at times but big fun for an engineer. I guess many calculated answers can be found in the development of the bajonet, scientific reports should still be there, like the belgian 1916 type; triangular hollowed on all sides, perfected for stabbing and parry for that matter. I do wonder if multiple layers of mail like seen on collars and groin would catch a blade better, many effigies appear to have big rings of thicker material; what could stop a rondell dagger. When looking at tools; an awl, bodkin or broach as well has a specific shaped tip for specific materials to pierce, as old as tools are known that is a huge fact, I have multiple awls, some work perfect on normal supple leather but suck on thick belt leather, trijing on wood is another matter. Having a triangular awl hollow groundfor punching through brass or bronze plate that works best; it cuts on 3 places and stretches and rolls/pushes the edges with using by the very narrow taper, which aids tremendously in the force needed to penetrate deeper, hence the length of Tods dagger; the longer the blade the narrower the angle.
The Roundel is just a glorified awl or cold punch more than a dagger. Is nice to see people enthusiastic about such matters at least. They don't understand Mentergy in the slightest but nice to see them trying to figure out matter people much older & dead understood. Till matt get out some brough blocks & learns some basic geometry for shape-forms function he really won't achieve much. Still, I don't want to damper on your enjoyment. Unlike myself that worked metal especially steel all my life I never understood any of your fascination or bewilderment.
@@fuferito ''metallurgy'' damn my mincers are getting shite in age! If you want to understand 90% of all metal objects structures think spheres, cylinders & triangle for those are the 3 most sound simple shapes. As for 'primates'' all homo sapiens are primates, we are the thinking ape though I often question that these days! wisdom & thinking seem to be in sparse supply these days. Mind people over complicating matters are abundant. I really shouldn't write comment around 3 am after drinking!
@@billysmith3841 'Yep' but put a curve on that plate & try getting said roundel it to bite! As for the plate in question I can go into hours about steel even just mild steel which I'd rather not. A lot of today mild steel has all sort of alloying additions like zinc & so on to make it malleable for shaping. Why anyone can kick in a car panel but being so malleable means, it can be knocked back into shape easily. Mass produced steel mainly from China is terrible for arms or armour but my is cheap. I'm not having a go at Matt, but I could put have a dozen sample in front of him & he would know the difference. Much less if it was old or new methods of forging. Old blast furnaces gave a far superior product to modern German Oxygen lance. But the quantity difference & time for production.
I mentioned in the comments over there, but I noticed that their backing was a curved heavy bag, and their steel plate was curved, too. I wonder if a lot of the difference might be curvature deflecting the strike on their tests.
Are spears found with a similar blade geometry to the rondel dagger? If not, why not? Also, an equilateral three edged blade is better suited to biting into plate, than a two or four edged blade; if one of the flat faces strikes the plate, if the plate is convex or flat, the blade will slide with an edge facing in the direction of the glance.
I'd love to see the previous testing revisited with the same elements(Todd's dagger, Matt wielding it, and the same types/qualities of armour) but with the armour mounted on the same "body" and stand used in Todd's arrows vs armour test. Where the body has a little squishyness, and it can slide back or wobble as a person might when struck.
I think that you probably won't use a Rondel dagger unless; A) you've lost all your other weapons, or B) you are reduced to fighting on the ground. In the case of B, the body isn't going to flex away, because they are lying on the ground.
@@Alastair510 Fair points! With that in mind I'd still like to see the standing test I mentioned above, but also a version with the target lying on the ground with Matt attacking it from manual depicted wrestling positions.
technique i everything! just being relaxed rather than stiff and rigid with the strike will add a lot more power and help keep the momentum on the blade through the target. the more tense you are the more you actually hold the weight back from the strike. consider the angle/distal taper of the point would be finely tuned to provide the optimum leverage to burst/pop open the ring in the mail.
I do believe that your testing was a good test. There are many variables with armor and weapons through history. You wanted to see if this type of blade would be useful in getting through armor. You proved that it is capable of getting through certain materials. The main variable lacking in your testing is a person wearing the armor moving around not wanting to be hit or stabbed. There was a reason why this style of dagger was used for fighting opponents in armor in a grapple. If it was not good people would not have used them and would have found a better weapon or tool to use.
One thing which would be highly valuable in tests of this sort going forward would be to begin to get a more concrete sense of the material properties of the weapons and armor being used-at the very least a Rockwell or Durometer hardness measurement of the blade and plate (or ring material if possible). That would add some hard numbers to the testing so that we aren't all being reduced to simply talking about mild versus hardened steel versus whatever random grade of wrought iron we've happened to get a hold of while sourcing materials. It would also resolve any confusions or suspicions about whether we're working with comparable materials, and allow other factors like edge/surface geometry, technique, and construction method to come to the fore.
I like your historical points about something existing gives credence to the thing we know is comparably inferior was known to be considered sufficient. I’d add that it can be with the progress of time and technology in the context of a world that did not share those advances at the same time.
When you introduce European martial arts to your students do you normally hold a dagger with an ice pick grip and point it at them through the entire lecture?
Its an interesting topic because ive encountered several depictions in chronicles from different german, swiss , austrian etc regions where they do show men with halberds cutting into helmets or shoulder plates or arm and hand armor. Since the depictions are widespread and often in the context of else not idealised (aside from political propaganda) illustrations, paintings or woodcuts i assume that there is more to that than just artistic evidence. And i remember reading the knight and the blast furnace where it was shown that infantry plate armour and sometimes even better quality Armour sometimes wasnt hardened or didnt have enough martensite or high enough carbon content (meaning there was an attempt at hardening). Still was well made but i suspsect is because of armour like that we can find depictions of polearms even cutting or stabbing through plate. Iirc Talhoffer also shows in one of his treatises the fight of the poleaxe and one stabs the other guy into the upper chest plate of the gothic harness. So this would explain a lot.
@scholagladiatoria The weird way the handle fits in your hand on Todd's dagger, suggests to me they were striking directly at the breastplate. The strange edge alignment is so the blade flexes upwards or downwards instead of flexing towards the curved sides of the breastplate. As a result, a blow is less likely to be deflected towards the side by the plate. So that specific dagger seems like its expected to be able to go directly through an opponents plate armour. The round handled Rondels might be so you can change your edge alignment based on the opponents armour.
Here is my two bits, I'm a carpenter and there have definitely been time where I said "This is 100% a minimum of a 3 man job and my skinny butt counts as half a man" but someone not much bigger than me will by himself not even bothering to get off the phone while he does it. The point is physical ability changes massively from person to person. Sometimes it's: skill, hight, weigh, strength, determination, or any combination. If someone: has 1 day more experience, is 1 inch taller, is 1 pound heavier, can do 1 more push up, and is just that little bit more willfully; in my experience that could account for the difference we see in the two videos.
I am fully saying that you're hitting harder than most folk will! Timing is everything, weight shift through hips, your height over the table etc etc. I reckon you'd get the same but opposite getting tod or another Smith to hit something with a hammer. Practise makes perfect!
Technique absolutely plays a part in the tests. Look at knife and sword cutting tests. The amount of technique and form is massively important. something as minimal as how much the tester's wrist flexes could cause extreme differences in comparisons of penetration depths. tester timidness would also play a huge part
I agree. I have seen the same problem is some stabbing tests as in a lot of novice cutting tests: the tester aims AT the target and kind of stops when they hit it, instead of focusing through the target and accelerating all the way.
From tests we've done at Boston Armizare, on maille with padding under it, on a heavy bag with some ability to swing, it is quite possible to break links as you demonstrated, and contrary to the Arms & Armor post. You need to ballistic strike into and deform a link before then couching and driving. I think they've arrived, incidentally, at a correct conclusion: point placement followed by couching and driving is insufficient to get the job done. I do like that they mentioned rulesets. We have a quality rule for strikes against maille, where they must: 1) travel at least 8", 2) hit with impetus, 3) stay stuck for a solid tempo/push on the impact point, and 4) be struck with good elbow attachment (elbows in so you're connected to your body/mass to carry the point through the newly deformed/broken link). For differentiating the specifics of body mechanics, I'd maybe take a look at the effects of an elbow-attached strike with the dagger versus a fully extended arm?
Great vid as usual...... 100% agree.....hollow ground makes a difference with friction - regardless of substrate, mail or plate. You as an individual will be delivering a harder stab than most other people, let's not pretend it's not going to have a bearing. It's a very specialised weapon, of course it works.
The dagger and experiments make me want to see something similar with yoroidoshi tanto. They’re usually thick like that and are literally called armor piercer but I’ve never seen one tested.
They claim to be able to pierce armor; yet many believe the armor breast plates cannot be pierced by Japanese blades. Also, the helmet cutter is not acutely sharp. No demonstration in recent time show they can actually cut helmet. Good to have experiment with such instrument.
I’m confident that you will tease out as many variables as possible. A mechanical “arm” to deliver “average “ force each time (dropped from the same height with same weight) will exclude your ability from the equation.
The problem is that without human testing, we don't actually know what average force is :-) And if 10% or 20% of trained people can delivery a notable higher energy, then that is enough to be historically relevant as well. I'm planning some human testing to try and narrow down some of these parameters.
It would be interesting to see the test done again, though with a leg of pork or other cut of meat underneath the maille/gambeson/plate, instead of the archery foam, since even when braced against the ground, a person would have more give than the foam. Also, having the testing material on the ground and stabbing from a kneeling position (as you would do after grappling an opponent to the ground) would be interesting to see.
With the prevalence of rondel dagger has to suggest that it was quite effective. If it was simply in fashion for a time it wouldn't explain them commonly on the battle field. When your life is fully on the line it doesn't matter how you look but having the best weapon for the job is greatly does.
I think some of the gauntlet effect is a locking of the dagger in position relative to the hand, your hand's pushing against the bottom surface of the gauntlet, with the point side roundel braced against the bottom surface of the gauntlet, and to an extent the gauntlet is bracing the wrist joint, effectively unitizing the dagger, hand and forearm, so there's less energy lost in the hilt sliding in the hand and the wrist flexing, this would also effect how rapidly the force is applied to the plate (force curves?) I'm not an engineer, just an amateur historian who has done some HEMA,1 so I'm sure I'm butchering the technical bits...
I advise a set of test blocks & indenters at least to test all subject in the experiment for a start! Change what you will but the scientific method of a reliable experiment was laid out by Robert Hooke where only 1 variable should ever me altered at a time. I won't bore but a lot more goes into metallurgical tests then showed & it's not a cheap endeavour lad. Still is nice to see such enthusiasm even if it's unlikely to achieve anything notable.
@@MtRevDr You could probably get through a car panel with a hard enough type of wood lad. Car panels are made to be malleable & ductile by alloying additions to be easy to work on purpose. It's all cost & time for ease of manufacturing. Nothing cheaper & simpler then stamped thin gauge sheet. I'm not overly intrigued on VG, 440c or ATS steels for blades. Worse & better alloys to make blades but nothing special. 1050 to 1080 medium Carbon steel is the best for blades, axes hammer et cetera. If you want stainless that is a vast subject but any Austenitic stainless won't see you wrong as its impact resistance & holds an edge well but less, then plain carbon steel. Why it is used for Bone saws scalpels & other surgical tools as well as being nonmagnetic. 440c is for bearing though often used in scissors but I'd argue against it though the best of the 3 cold steel retail uses. Kind regards!
Tod's Wallace Collection dagger looks a lot beefier than the one Arms & Armour used. I'd be interested to know the weight difference between the two. Not only would that give a bit more momentum, much as the gauntlet did, but it might alter the strike a bit too. Maybe. The thickness would also put more outward pressure on the rings (if they were the same size ring), possibly giving better cutting force, where a thinner blade might allow the ring to deform more and become more elongated, or oval shaped. Maybe that binds the blade a bit more & energy is lost into deforming rather than cutting. Just some thoughts from no knowledge. I've not been that excited by rondel daggers before, but all these inputs & tests are certainly peaking my interest. Look forward to more testing & ideas from everyone. There are so many variabilities to account for, I don't think there will ever be one definitive result, which is what it would have been in real life. But finding the best uses of the weapon & it's limitations is what you guys do with experimental archaeology.
What about the stuff the armor rests on during the tests or even how well the armor was fastened? I imagine there may be quite a bit of variety there in stiffness and elasticity of the materials and such, and the amount that gives way makes a very big difference in how much energy gets dissipated.
Mail wasn't designed to protect a chunk of wood or dense foam block. It was designed to protect flesh and blood. A body has 'give' which absorbs some of the force. I would like to see tests done on armour and clothing over that chunk of meat that you stabbed without any protection.
One thought: Tod's rondel dagger was based on a historical example but was a bit unusual, bit longer than normal. It could be that Tod did a really good job working with the steel, but also perhaps the ideal rondel dagger design for penetration is different in blade profile or is longer than a persons elbow? I could see medieval people giving up some penetration for easier handling especially since they were expected to wrestle with them.
On top of everything you've already talked about, one finer point, in the mechanics of delivering the blow, precision and follow through might also have an outside impact on this problem. Not just the total kinetic energy, but the precision of it and the follow-through after the initial contact and initial cut, puncture of the material being hit. You just might be more precise than they were in addition to all the other factors adding to the difference. So what I'm saying is not just one thing all of them put together but in addition think of the precision of the delivery as well as the follow-through of the delivery
You also presumably have no hesitation when stabbing. Someone who isn't used to sparring and the knocks, bruises, and pulled muscles that come with it, will subconsciously pull their strike to avoid the shock of the impact.
the differences between rondel daggers and other daggers establishes there was at least a perceived need for something that would ork better v armour. While at the same time variations in armour suggest there was a perceived need to have better protection. The two things together do, as you suggest, strongly imply you should expect different results between say a bullock dagger and a rondel, or between iron plate or maille and steel plate/maille. And I don't think that's really shocking. I was surprised by how easy it went through the maille, and the details of it. I always assumed the rivets would be the weak spots. I was a little surprised as well that it went through the sheet of metal. And, yeah, it would be awesome to see every variation, but incredibly expensive too. :)
to my eyes the mail in the Arms & Armor video appeared to be flattened in cross section and not just round wire. it looked to be much better quality than the mail Tod used in the tests.
Very good points. including that rondel case you present has many great points. And blade profiles. Pun(s) intended. No matter how bad jokes they were..
If I remember correctly, John Wilson (with the maker's mark "I. Wilson"), the famous Sheffield makers of late 18th, and early 19th century trade knives, advertised their knives as being made from "shear steel". These were by far the most highly prized, and sought after belt/trade knives in colonial and early America. This was also true of French-made knives, although to a somewhat lesser extent.
I'd argue that wether a hollow ground blade has contact only on the points or on the whole blade also depends on the material that is being pierced. In regards to flesh and fabric I believe it probably would contact all along the edges and as a hollow ground blade has more contact surface then a flat ground blade it should _increase_ friction in those cases. So it stands to reason that what you are saying about different crosssections for different tasks is likely.
But the hollow grind would allow the material to expand a little more, reducing the pressure exerted on the dagger by the material in these areas. That might reduce the "grippyness" of the material, improving penetration.
@@Norkans5 Hmm that might be relevant in the case of a steel plate but the other materials would rather be pushed away and in case of mail, fabric or flesh i doubt that would matter much.
A great 'Captain Context' video. =) Modern discussions of arms vs armour as being anything other than a kind of arms race where the richest guys with the best craftsmen usually win (IFF they knew *exactly* what they were building against, and had been lucky enough to aggressively stumble across the answer in this largely pre-science world of educated trial and error) would probably be very surprising to everyone who lived through this. But then, modern weapons do tend to work that way. Virtually all armour penetrating rounds defeat virtually all body armour, virtually any shaped charge will defeat virtually any armour plate on any vehicle, at least in a straight up, flat on test. (Reactive armour can of course mess with the shaping of the charge, and modern infantry are so tactically adept that the idea of relying on protective gear to stop bullets seems slightly quaint). So we're just used to a world where someone with a weapon is automatically a danger, and the only way to deal with it is through superior strategy, tactics, and skill. Finding out that the answer is 'it depends' is just not something we're used to in the modern context of virtually rock/paper/scissors combined arms warfare. But it seems like they lived in a world where a Javlin missile could destroy most tanks, but some were actually 'magic'. Likewise some dudes on the battlefield didn't have to be afraid of snipers. Unless they had magic bullets *and* you got too close. It sounds fucking dumb to us. But only as dumb as 'can't they just make better armour plate?' to protect against RPG-7s.
Skill and technique honed over long years of actual fighting - seems like it is fair to suggest that these would make a difference in how potent/effective a blow/strike is when weapon and target are the same but one blow comes without the skill and technique and another blow comes WITH it. Seems likely that Matt can do more damage with a blade than your average person. Delivering large amounts of force with accuracy and the best alignment is not easy.
I think one big difference between the two test was the backstop. I am not entire sure how deep the dagger could have penetrated into the backstop Arms & Armor used even without the armor. Also their backstop was quite flexible. I suggest try stabbing targets that are hanging from a rope. And try stabbing targets that are laying on the ground.
As I was talking with Nathan, I was going to say, there is so much variation, you could have 100 different tests and come out with a 100 different answers. I would say blade geometry is a larger factor than material to a degree for the most part.
Hey there! I was watching your video on the Easton 3 Sabre and noted you said you prefer not to have a back strap and that John Musgrave Waite recommended not as well. Why is that? Have you made a video on this?
The support material behind the armor can probably affect a test, and it's possible that even pretty small variations can have surprisingly large effects. That may explain differences. Simulating all the variables of real situations will be difficult. There's the difference between someone being skinny, fat, or wearing gambeson or not, may be significant. Also, there's not really any firmness that's analogue to even a single individual; the belly is different from the chest, which is different from the armpit, which is different from the throat, etc.. Then there's the circumstances; standing, laying down, moving towards you, moving away, moving sideways... Covering all variations will be a major undertaking. For a start, just testing the presumed extremes, plus the presumed average, may be the way to go.
Are we 100% certain about the determination that, "it existed, it must have had a purpose/done something that normal stuff wouldn't"? I only really ask because I look at stuff we have today and there is a TON of superfluous stuff made for absolutely no functional reason and where that logic breaks down. Today is different from way back then sure, but I have to imagine that some noble might commission something wildly impractical because it looks cool and nobody is brave enough to tell him he's a moron
I'd actually like to see the FS dagger against maille. It's a fairly slim and acute blade... Sharpness will matter very much, both the geometry of the edge and how well the apex is formed. Any cut you can make will weaken the ring, and make it more liable to pop under pressure. A single edged blade with a rounded, "slippery" back might be a good design, concentrating as much force as possible to a single cut on the ring. A sharper edge should also be more resistant to damage (dulling isn't linear). And any deformation on the tool is essentially wasted energy. I think you mentioned surface finish earlier, and I wonder if a lubricated blade vs a dry one would make a difference (any friction is again wasted energy.) Relating to that, is there any period documentation of how and with what the weapons were maintained?
The specific shape and sharpness of Tods dagger might be the main success here. I would suggest a test with several different dagger tips (does not need to be a full dagger) of different shapes and grades of sharpening, against a fixed set of materials.
YES! I love that this is a thing. I myself want to experiment with different type of steel to compare and contrast which would be ideal for these types of knives. 99% of historical makers are using the same type of steel used they use for their swords at the same types of hardnesses when knives are a completely different beast. With modern higher end combat and "tactical" knives you see them using higher alloy tool and stainless steels at higher hardnesses so curious what the limitations would be for these type of daggers that were made and designed to be used against armour.
In my uneducated opinion using the same simple high toughness carbon steels that is used for swords for these type of daggers is overkill since they aren't going to need that springy latteral flex that swords require and I think that steels with a little higher edge stability, wear resistance, and edge retention could be preferable, but that's gonna need some experimentation.
I think a similar 6" point on a Warhammer with a spike on back would be a more effective weapon. Giving 2 hands of force behind it and the reach of a sword along with impact and spiking ability.
Body mechanics is really good point, which is why shads tests arent always good, especially when his is using lighter weapons like nunchuks etc compared to a amrtial artists who knows how to move light objects quickly. in the same vein, i would trust joe gibbs view of some archy techniques/benfits bow pundage testing etc more than Shads,
I'm so glad Bruce Lee has entered this whole discussion; the 'one inch punch + rondell dagger' idea entered my brain near the end of the original video and I really want to see someone try it!
I have seen videos of Owen Bush when he is running his bloomery steel courses, and they are using an electrical fan as well as thermometers to make sure the steel is the right temperature. Not to hot, nor too cold. If that is what he did when he made the steel it probably does not represent an average. We know exactly how to get the best scientific results because we have the knowledge nowadays, so the steel he produces is probably the best quality achievable, and that is not necessarily the average in the middle ages when they used hand bellows and didn't have thermometers. In fact, examination of surviving armour proves this. It's usually made of poor quality low-carbon steel. If it's from a blast furnace and finery steel it's different, but that only happened in Milan and in Germany close to mid 15th C.
I agree. Though we should also remember that until the early 20th century, it was quite normal with top quality tools (including swords such as Wilkinson's) to test the finished items brutally and simply throw away those that did not pass the test (adding to the production costs of those that did pass the tests). We know that good quality armour was tested in the medieval world (and people paid much higher amounts for that armour), and better quality swords in all cultures seem to have been subjected to such tests. I think while most armour or weapons of the time may have been just 'good enough', the top quality products would have been 'warranted' and 'proofed', because we have so much evidence of this being done.
I think a good start, if you want to try to determine the relative importance of all of these factors between the arms and the armor (like materials of construction, contact area/pressure at the point of impact, contact area/pressure during penetration, mass, velocity, etc.) would be to get with a good statistician and work up some Design of Experiments. You could start small, then, if resources permit, expand the data. You may also have to come up with some sort of machine to make the dagger velocity and acceleration reproducible. An eventual result might illuminate the purpose of some historical weapons/armor as well as aid in more weapon/armor design.
Other than Richard III are there other remains that have been found with Rondel Dagger damage? Is it possible that the dagger could still cause those injuries with a helmet on? Even though there is evidence his helmet came off at some point.
@@pointdironie5832 Saw it in a documentary some years ago that said they had the helmet with the strap cut, they must have been referring to the skull.
@@robo5013 I agree that the killing blow was given once his helmet was removed. But his skull had two suspected Rondel Dagger inflicted injuries and I wondered whether it was possible for the dagger to stab through a helmet to cause them, as the diameter of those dagger holes in the skull were small i.e shorter blade penetration.
@@stanlinioh90 I just spent the last couple of days looking at some of the reports. I've only seen one report that said a stab wound to the skull was by a rondel dagger. The others just say stab wounds, possibly by a knife or dagger, maybe even sword tip. All the wounds occurred without a helmet, it either fell off or he took it off after he dismounted. There are wounds to his chin which suggest that the helmet may have been cut off, but unlikely. He was executed on his knees. Many of the wounds occurred near the time of death but many were probably postmortem since his body was hacked at after his armor had been removed and it was being carried off the field on a horse.I highly doubt any kind of dagger could penetrate plate, at least not while a person was standing upright and fighting. Maybe when on the ground and not able to move. Remember a dagger is a grappling weapon so most wounds that would have been caused by them would have been while the person was on the ground.
the problem with stabbing a perfectly flat piece of what I assume to be 16 or maybe 14 gauge modern steel is that is not how armour was shaped, especially in the late middle ages and Renaissance plate armour was designed to deflect,not to mention trying to stab a moving target who presumably doesn't want to die might be tricky I enjoyed you and tod's collaboration,I own quite a few of his pieces and they are all well built and thought out...cheers
I agree that armour has a lot of curves, but 1) it also has flatter elements, such as the upper breastplate, front of the pauldrons, front or back of the fauld etc etc. But more importantly 2) when you stab something and it bites, the ONLY important angle is the angle of impact to that tiny contact surface, which is ideally 90 degrees. It makes absolutely no difference if there are curves in every direction from that, because you are still in contact at 90 degrees with the point you are in contact with. Where curvature does have another side effect however is in shock absorbtion - a curved bridge being stronger than a flat bridge etc. However... that can actually assist penetration, because a flat plate squashes and absorbs some energy, whereas the curved plate resists deformation, which ironically makes penetration at the point of impact more likely! So it is a complicated matter and more tests are required :-)
A dagger being able to compromise armour doesn't invalidate armour any more than a poleaxe being able to concuss through a helmet. The armour makes it much more difficult for an attacker to defeat the wearer and forces the attacker to come within a range at which the wearer can defend themselves from said attacker.
The mail arms and armor uses sounds and looks like steel rather than iron. Does anyone know the base material? Even cheap modern metals have numerous trace elements that greatly improve their characteristics that medieval iron wouldn't have.
Very true. Armor works, not always but enough to make it worth it. Especially since the target is going to be moving & fighting back. Wrestling on the ground is far more difficult & exhausting than standing & fighting.
While the Sykes dagger almost certainly won’t penetrate as well as the bigger dagger, the next time you test the penetration abilities you should try it opposite the remake of the Sykes dagger as a control
If you want to test this with people, you need dozens, better would be hundreds of people, to get a good, statistically useful statement. Since you probably don't have that, it would be advisable to additionally build a device that performs the puncture in a reliably repeatable way, so that relevant data can be generated (usually the force curve during the puncture would be measured). You could also use the classic hardness tests (Rockwell, Vickers, Brinell) as a reference, so that you would generate objectively comparable results.
I am not a metallurgist but I do have a better than average understanding of metallurgy. One of the first things you are going to want is some details of the materials involved. I think I will email you and see if there is anything I can actually do to help. I will just give a few ideas for anyone who might be doing testing. First keep good data. The more you know about the process the better and it will better let others build off of your work making it more meaningful. For the knife you want to capture all the dimensions. Edge thickness and angles will be one of the more important measurements. Hardness is going to be harder to come up with but is one of the more important measurements. A set of hardness test files might be a valid option. Next you want to identify failure mechanisms as much as possible. Does the knife cut or is it bursting rings. A magnifying glass to examine the rings would be a good idea. I am interested to see what comes of this
Did the Arms & Armor folks use a wooden back for their tests? If so then the dagger will stop at the wood. Your tests had a softer, more like a body under the mail. This would make a huge difference.
The blade shape of rondel dagger is so acute that it can cut into the blood vessels of the neck through the rivet of mail even before any rivet is cut. So, armor offers limited and specific kind of protection.
I hope you're fine. Me & a friend, had 2 swords made with 4140 steel at 28RC(one was 1 hand other was 1-1/2(bastard). Following weapons were mild steel heat hammered edges; 1 one hand mace, 1 one hand medieval axe & 2 hands medieval axe. In 8 hours we crushed flat a 45 gallons steel barrel(middle flat & both top & bottom flat on top of middle). Barrel was attached to 2 trees with a thick rope passing both sides near top, so barrel was hanging like a bell. Wow !!! We really realized how powerful the medievals weapons were !!!! So a plate armor(curved) only gives a few minutes more in a fight, because I know that if I stab with an appropriate motion your car door with a pointy sword, it will go 1 foot & more in easy. Than you might wish to not open that door if you're seating in it.... :) My conclusion: medieval weapons are just under firearms, way more dangerous than I thought.
Stabbing something with a long weapon, such as the Rondel dagger, skill is involved. I noticed how Matt moved when he stabbed, how little the point wavered during the swing, that as the experiment went forward, he used more and more of his body with his attack. His skill in fighting definitely had an effect on the experiment. No different than how hard a normal man can punch versus even an amateur boxer. That all said, I will state again, part of what the experiment revealed was that armor was likely but one of the many components used in defense. Armor didn't make you invulnerable, it raised the chances you would survive the fight, survive the battle.
I would add that there is a huge difference in survivability between a weapon that goes 2" into your body and one that is run through your body. In other words, armor likely served many purposes and rather than all or nothing, propositions that humans are prone to, why armor was used was likely multi-faceted. I would also note that armor was made and used up to the point when firearm technology made it completely obsolete, same with the Rondel dagger giving way to daggers that are more similar to the Fairburn dagger in blade geometry.
To everyone who says “use a punching bag as it swings”. Well people don’t swing. People stand and brace their feet and lean into a fight especially at knife distances. So people only give a little. Punching bags are very dense and very very hard to stab into. My compound bow when shooting target arrows with sharp like a pencil point at 310 feet per second at 20 yards tney would only go in about 3cm. The bags had scrunched up small pieces of fabric stuffed in so so tight. Compare that to the same bow and arrows on the outdoor range when I shot a rabbit (my bad against range rules no target backstop) the arrow hit it and went clean through and didn’t even slow down and that was at about 15 20 yards. So punching bags aren’t a good analog for a person as some in the comments claim them to be. So I think this dagger crossection profile and side profile and stiffness are magnificent at transferring the dagger energy into a tiny area. The key to cutting steel.
Remember, that Tod emphatically said, the rondell dagger used to pierce all the materials, had been oiled - just like his armour-piercing crossbow bolts.
You want to understand the metallurgy Matt then consult my threads in your previous (Medieval Dagger vs Armor with Tod: Additional Thoughts) video. I'm willing to share what I know concerning fabrication, engineering, blacksmithing & so on but I'm not writing that out again here so humour me if you would matt!
I know that in Egil's Saga a weapon called 'bryntroll' is spoken of as being as deadly to a warrior in mail as a troll would be to an unarmed human being. Unfortunately, the poet gives us no additional details about the weapon, though one authority (Sigurdr Nordal) states that it was actually a halberd (?!). No specialized mail-piercing weapon like a rondel dagger has ever been found from the Viking (or pre-Viking) age that I am aware of, but Egil's Saga makes me wonder...could 'bryntroll' actually have been an early prototype rondel dagger, a rare or unique weapon that has simply never been recovered by archaeology?
Matt, I think part of the reason why the Arms & Armor dagger did so poorly, is because the chainmail they tested it against was resting on a large punching bag which had a lot of give to it. Consequently, a lot of the force of the dagger thrust was taken up by the flexing of the surface of the punching bag, and not by the chainmail itself. Likewise, I think part of the reason why Tod's dagger did so much better when you tested it, is because the materials you tested the dagger against, were resting on a piece of archery foam, which was far more rigid. Because the archery foam was more rigid, consequently far less of the force of your thrusts was taken up by the flexing of the archery foam, and far more of the force of your thrusts had to be taken up by the armor analogs you were testing the dagger against, which is why said armor analogs failed.
question is, which is more like a persons, muscled gnarley soldier would have different structure to a squidgy larper for example. lots of these tests leave the edges of the small test piece of chainmail loose, and they give and fly around....Todd does a great jo at minimising these otehr odd factors with his tests....
@@neoaliphant Even more importantly Todd's test would be an excellent comparison to a man on the ground. There would be no give to that blow.
WE have a volunteer to be stabbed here? Are you up to it LOL?
@@adambielen8996 good point
@@neoaliphant It's almost certainly true that the support material affects the test, and possible that even pretty small variations can have surprisingly large effects. The difference between someone being skinny, fat, or wearing gambeson or not, may be significant. Also, there's not really any firmness that's analogue to even a single individual; the belly is different from the chest, which is different from the armpit, which is different from the throat, etc.. Then there's the circumstances; standing, laying down, moving towards you, moving away, moving sideways... Covering all variations will be a major undertaking. For a start, just testing the presumed extremes, plus the presumed average, may be the way to go.
One thing that you haven't mentioned (well, mentioned, but only partially), but may be really important - Todd's dagger you used and Arms and Armor dagger are completely different daggers.
Todd's dagger has thicker spine, larger rondels and thinner handle (at least this is my impression from two videos). And, as mentioned, hollow grind vs flat blade.
What do I mean by that:
Thicker spine leads to a different force distribution in the mail ring - with thicker spine distance between point where edge touches ring and where spine touches ring is smaller. This means that force that tries to bend ring has smaller lever and therefore there is lesser chance that ring bends and higher chance that edge cuts through it.
Larger rondels and smaller grip means that more energy is transferred from hand into dagger and also into target. Or you can also say that whole system hand+dagger is more rigid and therefore is more efficient in transferring energy applied by your body to your hand.
And crossection affects how exactly metal folds when it is cut - this may also affect the overall resistance on steel pate to a weapon. I would also add that cutting stuff (especially cutting a metal with other metal with a fast speed) is a big and deep scientific field in applied physics. *Everything* has an impact on cutting efficiency - tool material, it's hardness, shape, how if deforms under pressure, target viscosity, etc.
Agreed with all of the above. I have an unsubstantiated hunch that the material of Tod's dagger was also uniquely well suited to this test. I don't necessarily think we would have got the same result with a sharpened piece of 5160. But I might be wrong - we shall see :-)
@@scholagladiatoria Bloomery steel isn't necessarily bad. What it is, is INCONSISTENT. In a single batch of bloomery steel, there are going to be chunks that are absolute junk, and there will be some that are exceptional. Remember, tamahagane which is incredibly expensive and highly prized for making nihonto blades due to its high carbon content of up to 1.5%, is a hand-selected piece of artisanal bloomery steel.
@@dgmt1 Not gonna challenge your point, just want to add that any possible kind of mail was mostly likely made sometime by someone for some price point. So in those test of arms vs armor unless test is said to be against "the best armor of the period", than any result would be accurate. I would absolutely believe that cheap mail would fail against dedicated anti-mail weapon but hold against slashing hits.
Also, while I here, want to mention that in russian historiography mail made from flat rings (presumably cut from sheet metal) is known to be a lot sturdier. It was also specifiacally called by german word "panzer". I wonder how would it hold against dedicated weapons compared to mail from wire rings.
Sectional Density has not been mentioned as a term here but long thin pointy beats shorter , not so thin and not so pointy !!
I feel like this would be a great "arrows vs armour" kind of video, especially if you test different daggers on all sort of donated armour pieces.
Armour is expensive, especially authentically made one. I doubt he receives many donations.
I like to explain armor as goal keeper : as long as you do your part of the defense you don't need a lot for it to be effective, but it will fail if you don't assist it. Your tests with Tod showed that armors job isn't to fend off a "coup de grâce" once pined-down and defenseless. Waiting for a test with a similar set-up as you did for "longbow vs armor" ;)
Matt, your colabs with Tod are fantastic to witness. Exciting content.
The edge geometry on the rondel also seems to hint at it being made to snap/cut the chainmail as it is just larger than most standard loops so it would go into one, can have a concentrated pressure on it in a very gradually increasing angle that is ideal for shearing them.
A double layered mail could possibly stop it from reaching as far in, by applying a second resistant layer, but I have doubts that it wouldnt still reach a damaging penetration depth, especially if we are talking about double mail on joints/neck, where you are probably more interested in some rigidity to protect from a "blunt-ed" blow crushing your windpipe rather than a dagger being used to nick something vital.
The tests at A&A seemed to be done in a way that vastly favored the armor, both in what they were being done on (the bags had more give and were less representative of something you could penetrate) as well as being done with a different dagger that isnt made in and optimized to pierce mail.
The three big qualifiers you listed were exactly the three that sprang to my mind.
Also, a later point you made is super obvious, yet still worth stating: rondel daggers wouldn't exist if they didn't work. One could even say, "if they didn't reliably work." One wouldn't bother buying and carrying a weapon that would fail more often than not; and we know that these daggers were not uncommon.
Thanks for linking the other channel. I'm off to view that now.
Haha you said he made a point!
There was a bit in the other video where the guys mentioned possibly getting only half-an-inch penetration, and I was forced to consider for a moment just how unhappy I would be with half-an-inch of steel stuck in my armpit. So 'working badly' in this context is still arguably extremely useful at the end of the day. And the best possible result of going through several different types of armour like it's just not there is just absurd, in the context of fighting a man who is borderline invulnerable to cutting blades.
So another way of phrasing this is 'if it usually works *at all*, even a little bit, to any degree', you'd absolutely want to have one.
The A&A video had the maille backed with a punching bag.
They tend to be stuffed with weird little shredded cloth balls and it can make them surprisingly difficult to stab into. Ive disected a few with a sword and im always surprised at how tough they actually are.
Great vid ,this has definitely raised more questionsand as for arms and armour inc. fantastic channel , quality content as ever
Great points, especially the last one! There _has_ to be a reason why this weapon was created and used, and used outside of any ceremonial/regulated duelling setting. If there's one thing humanity does well, it's weeding out things that don't aid in in the act of warfare.
Pun intended?😊
@@almac2598 Oh yeah...totally...;)
Todd’s dagger was made from a forged billet of bloomery steel that had carbon folded into it. WHEN IT WAS HARDENED and then belt sanded if the steel was true steel (iron with a good carbon content) and the steel was actually hard then the sanding process would be producing massive showers of sparks every time it touched the belt. Yet this hardened dagger only mad a few sparks occasionally. The dagger wasn’t really hardened to what we would call hardened today. I concede the dagger was harder than it was prior to hardening though.
So the dagger was made with a low grade version of bloomery steel. So a low grade version of steel of the day.
The chain mail was average riveted mail that failed in the ring every time and never at the rivet. Todd very specifically said that it failed as if cut with a cold chisel. That’s a specific type of metal cutting that’s very efficient at cutting steel as opposed to stretching the ring till the spring snapped from being stretched too far.
Also Matt is a ‘professional’ at using daggers amongst other things, to penetrate armour. So training counts as it gives you proper proven technique.
The key points is A dagger replica of period dagger made with the materials of the day. B dagger used with training and excellent technique. C targets were equivalent to at least average armour components of the day. D the dagger style has a very gradual taper which is magnificent for spreading anything and also transferring all the energy from a long stab into a tiny area. E the hefty thickness of the blade wouldn’t bend hardly at all and since bending is a massive wast of energy and reduces the impact shock and it’s the impact shock that keys the point in and cold chisel cuts the initial breakthrough of the point means it very important.
So this weapon was designed using actual combat feed back over a long period of time starting with a short sharp stick. So massive weapon refinement was made in its construction and in its use.
Seems that we're looking for a consistent answer to a question that doesn't have one? Perhaps depending on the mail or plate quality or the design and quality of the dagger different outcomes were a possibility? There was no universal standard for weapons and armour but rather a lot of variability depending on skill and budget, so it was about who was wearing or carrying the best quality and technology.
It would help if the rondel daggers could be compared, side by side: size of the grip, length of the blade, tapering and profile, overall mass... Then maybe compare the maille, ring dimensions, maybe if at all possible a scratch test for hardness etc.
As is, there's too little solid date for any real conclusions.
i am loving these collab vids and the ensuing debates
8:43 Important point. Going along with that, we also know that treatises advised wrestling and stabbing into gaps in armoured dagger fighting, which they wouldn't have if rondel daggers were reliably able to penetrate plate armour in authentic conditions.
This has come up in different forms, but this is a maxim I've lived by since it was first taught to me (RIP Pat Rogers. Heaven is safer since you started training the angels.) Mission drives the gear. It is the go-to mantra when someone asks, what should I get, x, y or z. First, know your mission. What do you want it to do? That narrows the choices and eliminates the stuff that you like, or looks good, or is really cool, but can't do what you need it to do. Turning that around, the gear defines the mission. Truly, that's just another way of saying what you've done in your study of arms and armor. Keeping it to the Rondel dagger, the rondels protect the hand, not just against a weapon, but against slamming your hand or fingers against armor and injuring yourself. It makes it easier to grasp the dagger when wearing gauntlets or gloves because you can't hold it any other way. The blade shape dictates a thrusting weapon and the grip & rondels make thrusts easy, cuts difficult. They also dictate the type of thrust, i.e. really close quarters combat. Not an extended arm forming a straight line for a lunge. It's natural position is perpendicular to the lower arm, whether it is point up or point down. And the shape of the blade is essentially a spike. What do you do with spikes? You stick them in things.
Yes, rondel daggers were worn when not in armor. But that doesn't mean they were preferred choice for unarmored combat. The answer is fairly simple (and if I'm wrong, then I'm a simpleton!), most people didn't have a lot of knives so they could choose which one for which activity. But if I defending with a knife and no one was in armor, a good long Bowie knife would be my choice. Yes, a rondel dagger is a good stabber, but no better than a Bowie or a long "Knightly" dagger (or the Holbein). And those other knives/daggers are far superior when it comes to cutting. The gear drives the mission. As you've shown, the rondel dagger was designed as an anti-armor weapon in close quarters. Any other use violates the premise of mission drives the gear. Ergo, they use for the other purposes because it's what they have and it is more important for it's primary use context.
Fascinating that one test raises so much questions, mindbogling at times but big fun for an engineer. I guess many calculated answers can be found in the development of the bajonet, scientific reports should still be there, like the belgian 1916 type; triangular hollowed on all sides, perfected for stabbing and parry for that matter.
I do wonder if multiple layers of mail like seen on collars and groin would catch a blade better, many effigies appear to have big rings of thicker material; what could stop a rondell dagger.
When looking at tools; an awl, bodkin or broach as well has a specific shaped tip for specific materials to pierce, as old as tools are known that is a huge fact, I have multiple awls, some work perfect on normal supple leather but suck on thick belt leather, trijing on wood is another matter. Having a triangular awl hollow groundfor punching through brass or bronze plate that works best; it cuts on 3 places and stretches and rolls/pushes the edges with using by the very narrow taper, which aids tremendously in the force needed to penetrate deeper, hence the length of Tods dagger; the longer the blade the narrower the angle.
Over these past few days, be it at Tod's channel or this channel, as gorgeous as these rondel daggers can be, they sure are a nasty bit of steel.
The Roundel is just a glorified awl or cold punch more than a dagger.
Is nice to see people enthusiastic about such matters at least.
They don't understand Mentergy in the slightest but nice to see them trying to figure out matter people much older & dead understood.
Till matt get out some brough blocks & learns some basic geometry for shape-forms function he really won't achieve much.
Still, I don't want to damper on your enjoyment.
Unlike myself that worked metal especially steel all my life I never understood any of your fascination or bewilderment.
@@arnijulian6241,
Thanks for allowing us mere primates some enjoyment.
“Geometry” sounds vaguely familiar, but what's _Mentergy?_
@@arnijulian6241 it's still dagger though isn't it? A dagger with a specific job which is punching through plate metal
@@fuferito ''metallurgy'' damn my mincers are getting shite in age!
If you want to understand 90% of all metal objects structures think spheres, cylinders & triangle for those are the 3 most sound simple shapes.
As for 'primates'' all homo sapiens are primates, we are the thinking ape though I often question that these days!
wisdom & thinking seem to be in sparse supply these days.
Mind people over complicating matters are abundant.
I really shouldn't write comment around 3 am after drinking!
@@billysmith3841 'Yep' but put a curve on that plate & try getting said roundel it to bite!
As for the plate in question I can go into hours about steel even just mild steel which I'd rather not.
A lot of today mild steel has all sort of alloying additions like zinc & so on to make it malleable for shaping.
Why anyone can kick in a car panel but being so malleable means, it can be knocked back into shape easily.
Mass produced steel mainly from China is terrible for arms or armour but my is cheap.
I'm not having a go at Matt, but I could put have a dozen sample in front of him & he would know the difference.
Much less if it was old or new methods of forging.
Old blast furnaces gave a far superior product to modern German Oxygen lance.
But the quantity difference & time for production.
I mentioned in the comments over there, but I noticed that their backing was a curved heavy bag, and their steel plate was curved, too. I wonder if a lot of the difference might be curvature deflecting the strike on their tests.
Curve and give (or lack thereof) of the backstop I think are the two main factors!
Are spears found with a similar blade geometry to the rondel dagger? If not, why not? Also, an equilateral three edged blade is better suited to biting into plate, than a two or four edged blade; if one of the flat faces strikes the plate, if the plate is convex or flat, the blade will slide with an edge facing in the direction of the glance.
Yes they are, and many other polearms (eg. halberds, pollaxes, bills) sometimes have similar spikes.
I'd love to see the previous testing revisited with the same elements(Todd's dagger, Matt wielding it, and the same types/qualities of armour) but with the armour mounted on the same "body" and stand used in Todd's arrows vs armour test. Where the body has a little squishyness, and it can slide back or wobble as a person might when struck.
I think that you probably won't use a Rondel dagger unless; A) you've lost all your other weapons, or B) you are reduced to fighting on the ground.
In the case of B, the body isn't going to flex away, because they are lying on the ground.
@@Alastair510 Fair points!
With that in mind I'd still like to see the standing test I mentioned above, but also a version with the target lying on the ground with Matt attacking it from manual depicted wrestling positions.
technique i everything! just being relaxed rather than stiff and rigid with the strike will add a lot more power and help keep the momentum on the blade through the target. the more tense you are the more you actually hold the weight back from the strike.
consider the angle/distal taper of the point would be finely tuned to provide the optimum leverage to burst/pop open the ring in the mail.
More tests! Yay! I have the same Rondel you're waving around in this video - I want to test it on things, but I don't want to ruin it, so... lol
I do believe that your testing was a good test. There are many variables with armor and weapons through history. You wanted to see if this type of blade would be useful in getting through armor. You proved that it is capable of getting through certain materials. The main variable lacking in your testing is a person wearing the armor moving around not wanting to be hit or stabbed. There was a reason why this style of dagger was used for fighting opponents in armor in a grapple. If it was not good people would not have used them and would have found a better weapon or tool to use.
Really enjoying this series of videos. It would be interesting to see the weapons tested against armours wrapped around a side of pork or similar
One thing which would be highly valuable in tests of this sort going forward would be to begin to get a more concrete sense of the material properties of the weapons and armor being used-at the very least a Rockwell or Durometer hardness measurement of the blade and plate (or ring material if possible).
That would add some hard numbers to the testing so that we aren't all being reduced to simply talking about mild versus hardened steel versus whatever random grade of wrought iron we've happened to get a hold of while sourcing materials. It would also resolve any confusions or suspicions about whether we're working with comparable materials, and allow other factors like edge/surface geometry, technique, and construction method to come to the fore.
I like your historical points about something existing gives credence to the thing we know is comparably inferior was known to be considered sufficient. I’d add that it can be with the progress of time and technology in the context of a world that did not share those advances at the same time.
When you introduce European martial arts to your students do you normally hold a dagger with an ice pick grip and point it at them through the entire lecture?
Sometimes, yes.
@@scholagladiatoria i.e. When you really need to drive the point home?
Its an interesting topic because ive encountered several depictions in chronicles from different german, swiss , austrian etc regions where they do show men with halberds cutting into helmets or shoulder plates or arm and hand armor. Since the depictions are widespread and often in the context of else not idealised (aside from political propaganda) illustrations, paintings or woodcuts i assume that there is more to that than just artistic evidence.
And i remember reading the knight and the blast furnace where it was shown that infantry plate armour and sometimes even better quality Armour sometimes wasnt hardened or didnt have enough martensite or high enough carbon content (meaning there was an attempt at hardening). Still was well made but i suspsect is because of armour like that we can find depictions of polearms even cutting or stabbing through plate. Iirc Talhoffer also shows in one of his treatises the fight of the poleaxe and one stabs the other guy into the upper chest plate of the gothic harness.
So this would explain a lot.
@scholagladiatoria The weird way the handle fits in your hand on Todd's dagger, suggests to me they were striking directly at the breastplate. The strange edge alignment is so the blade flexes upwards or downwards instead of flexing towards the curved sides of the breastplate. As a result, a blow is less likely to be deflected towards the side by the plate. So that specific dagger seems like its expected to be able to go directly through an opponents plate armour. The round handled Rondels might be so you can change your edge alignment based on the opponents armour.
Here is my two bits, I'm a carpenter and there have definitely been time where I said "This is 100% a minimum of a 3 man job and my skinny butt counts as half a man" but someone not much bigger than me will by himself not even bothering to get off the phone while he does it. The point is physical ability changes massively from person to person. Sometimes it's: skill, hight, weigh, strength, determination, or any combination. If someone: has 1 day more experience, is 1 inch taller, is 1 pound heavier, can do 1 more push up, and is just that little bit more willfully; in my experience that could account for the difference we see in the two videos.
I am fully saying that you're hitting harder than most folk will! Timing is everything, weight shift through hips, your height over the table etc etc. I reckon you'd get the same but opposite getting tod or another Smith to hit something with a hammer. Practise makes perfect!
Technique absolutely plays a part in the tests. Look at knife and sword cutting tests. The amount of technique and form is massively important.
something as minimal as how much the tester's wrist flexes could cause extreme differences in comparisons of penetration depths.
tester timidness would also play a huge part
I agree. I have seen the same problem is some stabbing tests as in a lot of novice cutting tests: the tester aims AT the target and kind of stops when they hit it, instead of focusing through the target and accelerating all the way.
From tests we've done at Boston Armizare, on maille with padding under it, on a heavy bag with some ability to swing, it is quite possible to break links as you demonstrated, and contrary to the Arms & Armor post. You need to ballistic strike into and deform a link before then couching and driving. I think they've arrived, incidentally, at a correct conclusion: point placement followed by couching and driving is insufficient to get the job done. I do like that they mentioned rulesets. We have a quality rule for strikes against maille, where they must: 1) travel at least 8", 2) hit with impetus, 3) stay stuck for a solid tempo/push on the impact point, and 4) be struck with good elbow attachment (elbows in so you're connected to your body/mass to carry the point through the newly deformed/broken link). For differentiating the specifics of body mechanics, I'd maybe take a look at the effects of an elbow-attached strike with the dagger versus a fully extended arm?
Great vid as usual......
100% agree.....hollow ground makes a difference with friction - regardless of substrate, mail or plate.
You as an individual will be delivering a harder stab than most other people, let's not pretend it's not going to have a bearing.
It's a very specialised weapon, of course it works.
The dagger and experiments make me want to see something similar with yoroidoshi tanto. They’re usually thick like that and are literally called armor piercer but I’ve never seen one tested.
They claim to be able to pierce armor; yet many believe the armor breast plates cannot be pierced by Japanese blades. Also, the helmet cutter is not acutely sharp. No demonstration in recent time show they can actually cut helmet. Good to have experiment with such instrument.
I’m confident that you will tease out as many variables as possible. A mechanical “arm” to deliver “average “ force each time (dropped from the same height with same weight) will exclude your ability from the equation.
The problem is that without human testing, we don't actually know what average force is :-)
And if 10% or 20% of trained people can delivery a notable higher energy, then that is enough to be historically relevant as well.
I'm planning some human testing to try and narrow down some of these parameters.
It would be interesting to see the test done again, though with a leg of pork or other cut of meat underneath the maille/gambeson/plate, instead of the archery foam, since even when braced against the ground, a person would have more give than the foam. Also, having the testing material on the ground and stabbing from a kneeling position (as you would do after grappling an opponent to the ground) would be interesting to see.
With the prevalence of rondel dagger has to suggest that it was quite effective. If it was simply in fashion for a time it wouldn't explain them commonly on the battle field. When your life is fully on the line it doesn't matter how you look but having the best weapon for the job is greatly does.
I think some of the gauntlet effect is a locking of the dagger in position relative to the hand, your hand's pushing against the bottom surface of the gauntlet, with the point side roundel braced against the bottom surface of the gauntlet, and to an extent the gauntlet is bracing the wrist joint, effectively unitizing the dagger, hand and forearm, so there's less energy lost in the hilt sliding in the hand and the wrist flexing, this would also effect how rapidly the force is applied to the plate (force curves?) I'm not an engineer, just an amateur historian who has done some HEMA,1 so I'm sure I'm butchering the technical bits...
Next time you run tests, maybe try some different styles of non-rondels to see the difference.
I advise a set of test blocks & indenters at least to test all subject in the experiment for a start!
Change what you will but the scientific method of a reliable experiment was laid out by Robert Hooke where only 1 variable should ever me altered at a time.
I won't bore but a lot more goes into metallurgical tests then showed & it's not a cheap endeavour lad.
Still is nice to see such enthusiasm even if it's unlikely to achieve anything notable.
Cold Steel blades have had lots of demonstration in penetrating steel sheets of modern cars.
@@MtRevDr You could probably get through a car panel with a hard enough type of wood lad.
Car panels are made to be malleable & ductile by alloying additions to be easy to work on purpose.
It's all cost & time for ease of manufacturing.
Nothing cheaper & simpler then stamped thin gauge sheet.
I'm not overly intrigued on VG, 440c or ATS steels for blades.
Worse & better alloys to make blades but nothing special.
1050 to 1080 medium Carbon steel is the best for blades, axes hammer et cetera.
If you want stainless that is a vast subject but any Austenitic stainless won't see you wrong as its impact resistance & holds an edge well but less, then plain carbon steel.
Why it is used for Bone saws scalpels & other surgical tools as well as being nonmagnetic.
440c is for bearing though often used in scissors but I'd argue against it though the best of the 3 cold steel retail uses.
Kind regards!
Tod's Wallace Collection dagger looks a lot beefier than the one Arms & Armour used. I'd be interested to know the weight difference between the two. Not only would that give a bit more momentum, much as the gauntlet did, but it might alter the strike a bit too. Maybe. The thickness would also put more outward pressure on the rings (if they were the same size ring), possibly giving better cutting force, where a thinner blade might allow the ring to deform more and become more elongated, or oval shaped. Maybe that binds the blade a bit more & energy is lost into deforming rather than cutting. Just some thoughts from no knowledge. I've not been that excited by rondel daggers before, but all these inputs & tests are certainly peaking my interest. Look forward to more testing & ideas from everyone. There are so many variabilities to account for, I don't think there will ever be one definitive result, which is what it would have been in real life. But finding the best uses of the weapon & it's limitations is what you guys do with experimental archaeology.
What about the stuff the armor rests on during the tests or even how well the armor was fastened? I imagine there may be quite a bit of variety there in stiffness and elasticity of the materials and such, and the amount that gives way makes a very big difference in how much energy gets dissipated.
Yes! New "armour vs ..." series of videos on SwordTube!
So you are saying there might well have been armour workshops with the sign: No Junk Mail.
Mail wasn't designed to protect a chunk of wood or dense foam block. It was designed to protect flesh and blood. A body has 'give' which absorbs some of the force. I would like to see tests done on armour and clothing over that chunk of meat that you stabbed without any protection.
One thought: Tod's rondel dagger was based on a historical example but was a bit unusual, bit longer than normal. It could be that Tod did a really good job working with the steel, but also perhaps the ideal rondel dagger design for penetration is different in blade profile or is longer than a persons elbow? I could see medieval people giving up some penetration for easier handling especially since they were expected to wrestle with them.
On top of everything you've already talked about, one finer point, in the mechanics of delivering the blow, precision and follow through might also have an outside impact on this problem. Not just the total kinetic energy, but the precision of it and the follow-through after the initial contact and initial cut, puncture of the material being hit. You just might be more precise than they were in addition to all the other factors adding to the difference. So what I'm saying is not just one thing all of them put together but in addition think of the precision of the delivery as well as the follow-through of the delivery
You also presumably have no hesitation when stabbing. Someone who isn't used to sparring and the knocks, bruises, and pulled muscles that come with it, will subconsciously pull their strike to avoid the shock of the impact.
the differences between rondel daggers and other daggers establishes there was at least a perceived need for something that would ork better v armour. While at the same time variations in armour suggest there was a perceived need to have better protection. The two things together do, as you suggest, strongly imply you should expect different results between say a bullock dagger and a rondel, or between iron plate or maille and steel plate/maille. And I don't think that's really shocking. I was surprised by how easy it went through the maille, and the details of it. I always assumed the rivets would be the weak spots. I was a little surprised as well that it went through the sheet of metal. And, yeah, it would be awesome to see every variation, but incredibly expensive too. :)
to my eyes the mail in the Arms & Armor video appeared to be flattened in cross section and not just round wire. it looked to be much better quality than the mail Tod used in the tests.
Very good points. including that rondel case you present has many great points. And blade profiles. Pun(s) intended. No matter how bad jokes they were..
If I remember correctly, John Wilson (with the maker's mark "I. Wilson"), the famous Sheffield makers of late 18th, and early 19th century trade knives, advertised their knives as being made from "shear steel". These were by far the most highly prized, and sought after belt/trade knives in colonial and early America. This was also true of French-made knives, although to a somewhat lesser extent.
I'd argue that wether a hollow ground blade has contact only on the points or on the whole blade also depends on the material that is being pierced. In regards to flesh and fabric I believe it probably would contact all along the edges and as a hollow ground blade has more contact surface then a flat ground blade it should _increase_ friction in those cases. So it stands to reason that what you are saying about different crosssections for different tasks is likely.
But the hollow grind would allow the material to expand a little more, reducing the pressure exerted on the dagger by the material in these areas.
That might reduce the "grippyness" of the material, improving penetration.
@@Norkans5 Hmm that might be relevant in the case of a steel plate but the other materials would rather be pushed away and in case of mail, fabric or flesh i doubt that would matter much.
A great 'Captain Context' video. =)
Modern discussions of arms vs armour as being anything other than a kind of arms race where the richest guys with the best craftsmen usually win (IFF they knew *exactly* what they were building against, and had been lucky enough to aggressively stumble across the answer in this largely pre-science world of educated trial and error) would probably be very surprising to everyone who lived through this. But then, modern weapons do tend to work that way. Virtually all armour penetrating rounds defeat virtually all body armour, virtually any shaped charge will defeat virtually any armour plate on any vehicle, at least in a straight up, flat on test. (Reactive armour can of course mess with the shaping of the charge, and modern infantry are so tactically adept that the idea of relying on protective gear to stop bullets seems slightly quaint).
So we're just used to a world where someone with a weapon is automatically a danger, and the only way to deal with it is through superior strategy, tactics, and skill. Finding out that the answer is 'it depends' is just not something we're used to in the modern context of virtually rock/paper/scissors combined arms warfare. But it seems like they lived in a world where a Javlin missile could destroy most tanks, but some were actually 'magic'. Likewise some dudes on the battlefield didn't have to be afraid of snipers. Unless they had magic bullets *and* you got too close. It sounds fucking dumb to us. But only as dumb as 'can't they just make better armour plate?' to protect against RPG-7s.
Skill and technique honed over long years of actual fighting - seems like it is fair to suggest that these would make a difference in how potent/effective a blow/strike is when weapon and target are the same but one blow comes without the skill and technique and another blow comes WITH it. Seems likely that Matt can do more damage with a blade than your average person. Delivering large amounts of force with accuracy and the best alignment is not easy.
I think one big difference between the two test was the backstop. I am not entire sure how deep the dagger could have penetrated into the backstop Arms & Armor used even without the armor. Also their backstop was quite flexible.
I suggest try stabbing targets that are hanging from a rope. And try stabbing targets that are laying on the ground.
Such a captivating video that I thought it was 5 minutes long!
As I was talking with Nathan, I was going to say, there is so much variation, you could have 100 different tests and come out with a 100 different answers. I would say blade geometry is a larger factor than material to a degree for the most part.
Hey there! I was watching your video on the Easton 3 Sabre and noted you said you prefer not to have a back strap and that John Musgrave Waite recommended not as well. Why is that? Have you made a video on this?
The support material behind the armor can probably affect a test, and it's possible that even pretty small variations can have surprisingly large effects. That may explain differences.
Simulating all the variables of real situations will be difficult. There's the difference between someone being skinny, fat, or wearing gambeson or not, may be significant. Also, there's not really any firmness that's analogue to even a single individual; the belly is different from the chest, which is different from the armpit, which is different from the throat, etc.. Then there's the circumstances; standing, laying down, moving towards you, moving away, moving sideways... Covering all variations will be a major undertaking. For a start, just testing the presumed extremes, plus the presumed average, may be the way to go.
Are we 100% certain about the determination that, "it existed, it must have had a purpose/done something that normal stuff wouldn't"? I only really ask because I look at stuff we have today and there is a TON of superfluous stuff made for absolutely no functional reason and where that logic breaks down. Today is different from way back then sure, but I have to imagine that some noble might commission something wildly impractical because it looks cool and nobody is brave enough to tell him he's a moron
I'd actually like to see the FS dagger against maille. It's a fairly slim and acute blade...
Sharpness will matter very much, both the geometry of the edge and how well the apex is formed. Any cut you can make will weaken the ring, and make it more liable to pop under pressure. A single edged blade with a rounded, "slippery" back might be a good design, concentrating as much force as possible to a single cut on the ring. A sharper edge should also be more resistant to damage (dulling isn't linear). And any deformation on the tool is essentially wasted energy. I think you mentioned surface finish earlier, and I wonder if a lubricated blade vs a dry one would make a difference (any friction is again wasted energy.) Relating to that, is there any period documentation of how and with what the weapons were maintained?
The specific shape and sharpness of Tods dagger might be the main success here. I would suggest a test with several different dagger tips (does not need to be a full dagger) of different shapes and grades of sharpening, against a fixed set of materials.
They could be made to all impact with the same force, using a falling weight + daggertip on a rail.
I suspect the variable will be a little simpler than detailed questions about the blade. I bet it’s the physics of the stab and the backing material.
YES! I love that this is a thing. I myself want to experiment with different type of steel to compare and contrast which would be ideal for these types of knives. 99% of historical makers are using the same type of steel used they use for their swords at the same types of hardnesses when knives are a completely different beast. With modern higher end combat and "tactical" knives you see them using higher alloy tool and stainless steels at higher hardnesses so curious what the limitations would be for these type of daggers that were made and designed to be used against armour.
In my uneducated opinion using the same simple high toughness carbon steels that is used for swords for these type of daggers is overkill since they aren't going to need that springy latteral flex that swords require and I think that steels with a little higher edge stability, wear resistance, and edge retention could be preferable, but that's gonna need some experimentation.
I think a similar 6" point on a Warhammer with a spike on back would be a more effective weapon. Giving 2 hands of force behind it and the reach of a sword along with impact and spiking ability.
Body mechanics is really good point, which is why shads tests arent always good, especially when his is using lighter weapons like nunchuks etc compared to a amrtial artists who knows how to move light objects quickly. in the same vein, i would trust joe gibbs view of some archy techniques/benfits bow pundage testing etc more than Shads,
It would be interesting to see other types of knives and daggers go against different types of armour just to compare them to the rondel dagger.
I'm going to interpret this as Matt basically declaring that he is the Bruce Lee of HEMA. 😅
I'm so glad Bruce Lee has entered this whole discussion; the 'one inch punch + rondell dagger' idea entered my brain near the end of the original video and I really want to see someone try it!
I have seen videos of Owen Bush when he is running his bloomery steel courses, and they are using an electrical fan as well as thermometers to make sure the steel is the right temperature. Not to hot, nor too cold. If that is what he did when he made the steel it probably does not represent an average. We know exactly how to get the best scientific results because we have the knowledge nowadays, so the steel he produces is probably the best quality achievable, and that is not necessarily the average in the middle ages when they used hand bellows and didn't have thermometers. In fact, examination of surviving armour proves this. It's usually made of poor quality low-carbon steel. If it's from a blast furnace and finery steel it's different, but that only happened in Milan and in Germany close to mid 15th C.
I agree. Though we should also remember that until the early 20th century, it was quite normal with top quality tools (including swords such as Wilkinson's) to test the finished items brutally and simply throw away those that did not pass the test (adding to the production costs of those that did pass the tests). We know that good quality armour was tested in the medieval world (and people paid much higher amounts for that armour), and better quality swords in all cultures seem to have been subjected to such tests. I think while most armour or weapons of the time may have been just 'good enough', the top quality products would have been 'warranted' and 'proofed', because we have so much evidence of this being done.
I think a good start, if you want to try to determine the relative importance of all of these factors between the arms and the armor (like materials of construction, contact area/pressure at the point of impact, contact area/pressure during penetration, mass, velocity, etc.) would be to get with a good statistician and work up some Design of Experiments. You could start small, then, if resources permit, expand the data. You may also have to come up with some sort of machine to make the dagger velocity and acceleration reproducible. An eventual result might illuminate the purpose of some historical weapons/armor as well as aid in more weapon/armor design.
Other than Richard III are there other remains that have been found with Rondel Dagger damage? Is it possible that the dagger could still cause those injuries with a helmet on? Even though there is evidence his helmet came off at some point.
It was cut off, the helmet is in a museum in Britain and the leather strap had been cut. He was prone ant his helmet forcibly removed.
@@pointdironie5832 Saw it in a documentary some years ago that said they had the helmet with the strap cut, they must have been referring to the skull.
@@robo5013 I agree that the killing blow was given once his helmet was removed. But his skull had two suspected Rondel Dagger inflicted injuries and I wondered whether it was possible for the dagger to stab through a helmet to cause them, as the diameter of those dagger holes in the skull were small i.e shorter blade penetration.
@@stanlinioh90 I just spent the last couple of days looking at some of the reports. I've only seen one report that said a stab wound to the skull was by a rondel dagger. The others just say stab wounds, possibly by a knife or dagger, maybe even sword tip. All the wounds occurred without a helmet, it either fell off or he took it off after he dismounted. There are wounds to his chin which suggest that the helmet may have been cut off, but unlikely. He was executed on his knees. Many of the wounds occurred near the time of death but many were probably postmortem since his body was hacked at after his armor had been removed and it was being carried off the field on a horse.I highly doubt any kind of dagger could penetrate plate, at least not while a person was standing upright and fighting. Maybe when on the ground and not able to move. Remember a dagger is a grappling weapon so most wounds that would have been caused by them would have been while the person was on the ground.
Hi Matt, you should test different rondel dagger blade shapes
Rondel compared to the last foot of a sword intended for half swording might be interesting.
the problem with stabbing a perfectly flat piece of what I assume to be 16 or maybe 14 gauge modern steel is that is not how armour was shaped, especially in the late middle ages and Renaissance
plate armour was designed to deflect,not to mention trying to stab a moving target who presumably doesn't want to die might be tricky
I enjoyed you and tod's collaboration,I own quite a few of his pieces and they are all well built and thought out...cheers
I agree that armour has a lot of curves, but 1) it also has flatter elements, such as the upper breastplate, front of the pauldrons, front or back of the fauld etc etc. But more importantly 2) when you stab something and it bites, the ONLY important angle is the angle of impact to that tiny contact surface, which is ideally 90 degrees. It makes absolutely no difference if there are curves in every direction from that, because you are still in contact at 90 degrees with the point you are in contact with. Where curvature does have another side effect however is in shock absorbtion - a curved bridge being stronger than a flat bridge etc. However... that can actually assist penetration, because a flat plate squashes and absorbs some energy, whereas the curved plate resists deformation, which ironically makes penetration at the point of impact more likely! So it is a complicated matter and more tests are required :-)
Wouldn’t be nice for the guys at Ad&A to ship the mail and armor to you and Todd for a counter test? I would love to see it
My immediate reaction to different tests (which I haven't seen) is that hitting a static target is going to be different than a mobile one.
A dagger being able to compromise armour doesn't invalidate armour any more than a poleaxe being able to concuss through a helmet. The armour makes it much more difficult for an attacker to defeat the wearer and forces the attacker to come within a range at which the wearer can defend themselves from said attacker.
It Works good I bet like a Roman
Knight for Low Attacks?
Looks like a can opener
The mail arms and armor uses sounds and looks like steel rather than iron. Does anyone know the base material? Even cheap modern metals have numerous trace elements that greatly improve their characteristics that medieval iron wouldn't have.
Very true. Armor works, not always but enough to make it worth it. Especially since the target is going to be moving & fighting back. Wrestling on the ground is far more difficult & exhausting than standing & fighting.
One of the thoughts that test brought to my mind is that bodkin points on arrows might be worth a bit more study.
Tod is making arrows vs armor 2
Would the reamer on my SAK go through your best titanium mail? With certainty it would. Would it do any significant damage? I doubt it.
I usealy make my daggers narrow but a wee bit thicker at the tip for strength
While the Sykes dagger almost certainly won’t penetrate as well as the bigger dagger, the next time you test the penetration abilities you should try it opposite the remake of the Sykes dagger as a control
If you want to test this with people, you need dozens, better would be hundreds of people, to get a good, statistically useful statement.
Since you probably don't have that, it would be advisable to additionally build a device that performs the puncture in a reliably repeatable way, so that relevant data can be generated (usually the force curve during the puncture would be measured).
You could also use the classic hardness tests (Rockwell, Vickers, Brinell) as a reference, so that you would generate objectively comparable results.
I am not a metallurgist but I do have a better than average understanding of metallurgy. One of the first things you are going to want is some details of the materials involved. I think I will email you and see if there is anything I can actually do to help.
I will just give a few ideas for anyone who might be doing testing. First keep good data. The more you know about the process the better and it will better let others build off of your work making it more meaningful. For the knife you want to capture all the dimensions. Edge thickness and angles will be one of the more important measurements. Hardness is going to be harder to come up with but is one of the more important measurements. A set of hardness test files might be a valid option. Next you want to identify failure mechanisms as much as possible. Does the knife cut or is it bursting rings. A magnifying glass to examine the rings would be a good idea.
I am interested to see what comes of this
Did the Arms & Armor folks use a wooden back for their tests? If so then the dagger will stop at the wood. Your tests had a softer, more like a body under the mail. This would make a huge difference.
The blade shape of rondel dagger is so acute that it can cut into the blood vessels of the neck through the rivet of mail even before any rivet is cut. So, armor offers limited and specific kind of protection.
I hope you're fine. Me & a friend, had 2 swords made with 4140 steel at 28RC(one was 1 hand other was 1-1/2(bastard). Following weapons were mild steel heat hammered edges; 1 one hand mace, 1 one hand medieval axe & 2 hands medieval axe. In 8 hours we crushed flat a 45 gallons steel barrel(middle flat & both top & bottom flat on top of middle). Barrel was attached to 2 trees with a thick rope passing both sides near top, so barrel was hanging like a bell. Wow !!! We really realized how powerful the medievals weapons were !!!! So a plate armor(curved) only gives a few minutes more in a fight, because I know that if I stab with an appropriate motion your car door with a pointy sword, it will go 1 foot & more in easy. Than you might wish to not open that door if you're seating in it.... :) My conclusion: medieval weapons are just under firearms, way more dangerous than I thought.
Do you think the Rondal Dagger would go through a modern stab proof vest ?
Stabbing something with a long weapon, such as the Rondel dagger, skill is involved. I noticed how Matt moved when he stabbed, how little the point wavered during the swing, that as the experiment went forward, he used more and more of his body with his attack. His skill in fighting definitely had an effect on the experiment. No different than how hard a normal man can punch versus even an amateur boxer. That all said, I will state again, part of what the experiment revealed was that armor was likely but one of the many components used in defense. Armor didn't make you invulnerable, it raised the chances you would survive the fight, survive the battle.
I would add that there is a huge difference in survivability between a weapon that goes 2" into your body and one that is run through your body. In other words, armor likely served many purposes and rather than all or nothing, propositions that humans are prone to, why armor was used was likely multi-faceted. I would also note that armor was made and used up to the point when firearm technology made it completely obsolete, same with the Rondel dagger giving way to daggers that are more similar to the Fairburn dagger in blade geometry.
Also, consider how you will mount the armor to be tested. For example, don't strap maille to a tree, your opponent wouldn't be so solid and stationary
To everyone who says “use a punching bag as it swings”. Well people don’t swing. People stand and brace their feet and lean into a fight especially at knife distances. So people only give a little. Punching bags are very dense and very very hard to stab into. My compound bow when shooting target arrows with sharp like a pencil point at 310 feet per second at 20 yards tney would only go in about 3cm. The bags had scrunched up small pieces of fabric stuffed in so so tight. Compare that to the same bow and arrows on the outdoor range when I shot a rabbit (my bad against range rules no target backstop) the arrow hit it and went clean through and didn’t even slow down and that was at about 15 20 yards. So punching bags aren’t a good analog for a person as some in the comments claim them to be.
So I think this dagger crossection profile and side profile and stiffness are magnificent at transferring the dagger energy into a tiny area. The key to cutting steel.
Remember, that Tod emphatically said, the rondell dagger used to pierce all the materials, had been oiled - just like his armour-piercing crossbow bolts.
You want to understand the metallurgy Matt then consult my threads in your previous (Medieval Dagger vs Armor with Tod: Additional Thoughts) video.
I'm willing to share what I know concerning fabrication, engineering, blacksmithing & so on but I'm not writing that out again here so humour me if you would matt!
I know that in Egil's Saga a weapon called 'bryntroll' is spoken of as being as deadly to a warrior in mail as a troll would be to an unarmed human being. Unfortunately, the poet gives us no additional details about the weapon, though one authority (Sigurdr Nordal) states that it was actually a halberd (?!). No specialized mail-piercing weapon like a rondel dagger has ever been found from the Viking (or pre-Viking) age that I am aware of, but Egil's Saga makes me wonder...could 'bryntroll' actually have been an early prototype rondel dagger, a rare or unique weapon that has simply never been recovered by archaeology?
My assumption has always been that was a specific type of spear, like an angon, or with a similarly shank-like head.
so are you going to be testing the rondel against other types of dagger against the same target to see the difference?
I'm not sure how historically authentic it is, but a lot of modern maille makers call an 8-in-2 weave Double Maille, rather than two layers of 4-in-1.