Anyone can shoot through armor, the invention that would have changed history! DEBUNKED
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Thanks to Scentbird for sponsoring! Use METATRON55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3rqUkpz This month I received...
Ember by Joseph Abboud sbird.co/3EQvX7L
Cross River Gorilla by Sanctuary sbird.co/48q10oy
Fig Leaves + White Musk by OffCourt sbird.co/48sypPh
This is a debunking of the video posted by Lars Andersen on his youtube channel. Here is the link to the original video for context:
• Anyone can shoot throu...
#archery #debunking #mythbusting
Use METATRON55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3rqUkpz
You're exactly right on the "cheap" armour of the period.
It doesn't matter that it was "built to a price". It was still made by a smith/armourer who was quite familiar with the process of making effective armour for the battlefield, who knew the proper forms to turn out plate that would keep the man wearing it alive. Armourers, as a rule, like that, because living customers are repeat customers.
Sure, once he trusted his apprentices to do the job properly he might turn over "mass" production to them, and like you say they would simply have a functional finish, but they would be effective armour, just not pretty armour.
It's like when people grab butted mail and shoot an arrow through it, and you see the rings deformed and expanded to let the arrow through. Then they declare mail "useless" even though butted mail in no way replicates the riveted mail that would actually have been used on the battlefield. Riveted mail might be "weaker" against piercing attacks, but it was still good enough that they had to invent bodkin arrows to have any reliable offense against it.
I recall reading that the Crusaders (who wore mail at the time) could be pincushioned with Islamic arrows, and kept fighting simply because none of those arrows penetrated deep enough to hurt them.
Dear Raff of Metatron. Ive recently noticed all your Livestreams on this channel have been either removed or made private. Any reason for this? I loved watching and listening the Q&A Livestreams on the background while I worked on different projects.
I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that if a knight or anyone on horseback was riding towards you in battle, they would be a coming at you a fair bit FASTER than the rigg that "Lars" and his fake military archers were shooting at. You know, just to add to the discrepancies.... Love Metatron's content and look forward to the next video.
Much love from Canada.
💜🤍❤
@@Shadow-of-Mampang I probably will respond at one point. She likes bags, I like armour.
"We asked Natia who is a very good but not so strong archer to try"
She's using a compound bow. She doesn't need to be strong. Once the string is back you can hold it indefinitely without strain.
Now I want to make a video about how if knights armor would have been made of AR500 steel, it would have changed history.
I'll make a video about how if the Romans existed, and had plasma rifles in the 75w range, could have won the punic wars.
Unless Carthage had nukes!
@@DogDooWinner 99% less casualties!!! 😲😲😲
Right?! Or if knights used ballistic shields.
@@DogDooWinner So, the power of a regular incandescent lightbulb from back in the day?
As you can see here, the bunker buster against a cheap pine Roman fort recreation shows the Romans were engineering failures. Just like the time we proved how tanks made of paper can easily be cut by mall ninja weapons.
If it is such a foregone conclusion as you are implying that a metal arrow would easily penetrate medieval armour, then why didn't they use metal arrows?
You see I made a comment saying that I recognise this isn't historically accurate but that it is fun to speculate, and Metatron replied saying that I'm a perfect example of someone who didn't understand the lack of authenticity to the video and that is causes me to question "real medieval tactics". Meanwhile I see multiple other comments like your own, that seem to have the real point going right over their heads, and just accepting that these metal arrows would of been some sort of super weapon, but just for some reason weren't used, which is entirely illogical.
I'm a little miffed by the response I received.
@jamesquinn4959 Sorry people jumped on you. I may have missed the point.
@@marklaurenzi1609 Not people, but Metatron himself. I don't really understand why.
I don't see anything wrong in what you said, it was a funny comment, mission accomplished, I was just replying because of the reply I had gotten from Metatron.
I would say that the question would be that, if these arrows were so effective, (as yours and other's funny comment implies) then why weren't they used?
I think this is a reasonable question, the simple answer might well be that they weren't actually effective at all against historically accurate armour. But apparently that, and purely anachronistically theorising about how and why something like that might of been used, for fun, is "questioning real medieval tactics", and, "misinformation", according to Metatron.
Apparently you missed the part of the video where he says it would empty the kings treasury to make all your arrows out of metal……..
@@Alfred5555He's human, we all misunderstand and get a wee bit heated sometimes. 🤍
Those arrows hitting the so called breast plate sounded like they were hitting an aluminum trash can 😂
The penetration looked like it too
Absolutely. I was expecting Oscar to pop out the top complaining
Reactionary vs Realism
ok but you have to respect that medieval archers were MLG 360 no scope pros
aluminium.
"Look, I have an fake breastplate made of aluminium foil. I'll use it to prove that hardened steel plate was useless against weak bows!"
Pretty much
@@MultiKeto yes, you can get aluminium to a lot of hardness - via anodizing - thus creating aluminium oxides - in nature found as corundum. it is harder than steel, but again you are right about the other property too - it is not tough enough.
There are but a few harder things in nature than corundum, one of it being diamond. We do use artificially created corundum for almost any grinding, sand blasting, water-jet cutting...
I just wanted to contribute a little bit, dont mind me :)
You were so right about the armor being useless. I threw a rock right through a piece of tinfoil so steel plate wouldn't stand a chance. Well done! LOL
Tod’s Workshop did a series on arrows penetrating plate armor, using Mary Rose type 160# longbows and bodkin arrowheads. The joints covered with chain mail were vulnerable, but simulated plate breastplates were not.
Great set of videos. Love his current pilum work too.
Yes, i think the armour plate Tod used where hand made by Kevin Legg and it was made as functional armour and had the same curvature as the mediveal original and where hardened and tempered at the same temperatures, etc. Modern steel are more homogen so perhaps it is slightly more resilliant, but bloom iron where made with a damascener like metod in the end of the making process in order to make it solid (i had the opportunity to study that process in a field experiment long time ago) so i think Tods experiment is relatively accurate, at least as far as we can go by any means of realistic reconstruction currently.
@@sheep1ewewhy don't we do damscene process in modern forging? Sounds awesome
@@sakesaurus
The reason is just that it would take a lot of work to do a genuine damascener piece, but there where actually a guy from sweden, unfortunately i can't remember hi's name, who made really awesome art pieces from black and silver-nickel (i think he used pure nickel or very high nickel alloy, which works as a glue the black part where carbon steel he bleckened with cold blue after the making process) those looked out of this world awesome to me, but i think it stayed with a gauntlet and a few more pieces.
Bloom iron where made by a process where the slag malts and one has to hammer it out of the lump after it hs been taken out of the pit, tha tprocess where (at least in the reconstruction) made in two steps, one, using a very large wooden malled made from fresh wood and a stone or treestump, but using the glowing heat remaining from the slagmelting process, when this is taken as far as it could the pice can be reheated in a coalforge, in scandinavia we used coal made from pinetrees (which they did in the reconstruction) which gives the benefit of a less "aggressive" heat compared to stone coal (at least it feels that way in the forge and the spice does "coaling up" nicely instead of getting burnt as whan i use the regular rock coal, but i am not sure how they did on the British islands if they also used this process or if the British Celts did use rock coal directly, but raw rock coal will leave a lot of imputities, it may work for bloom iron, but not for cast iron, so i think they did use wood coal for that reason in order to avoind impurities from sulphur, etc from the rock coal, and they almost cerntaly did in mediveal time even if the probably did use rock coal found on the beach or in the hillside mines in England in mediveal time i guess, we did not had that in scandinavia, so we used only wood coal here),
So, satge two is to solidify the bloom iron lump by forge welding it together into it self until one got a solid block without impurities if one where lucky ang managed to got good quality iron sand, they could not use rock ores until mediveal time, so they had to use orin dust collected in the bogs or from springs with a high amonth of iron hydroxide which could be collected in a system of small pond like structures and then extracted and dried, unlike cast iron, bloom iron is steel and can be forged directly after the smelting process if one want high carbon steel one could adjust that by adding more coal and regulate the heat, the whole process takes a whole day only for the pit owen to be fired and it requires coal för 9 houres nonstop, ontop of the firewood for roasting the ironsand from impurities before it can go into the oven. so i can understand steel where really expensive in historical times.
If the bloom iron process sucess in all for steps if one cut a pice and etching the surface it will show a damascener like pattern, but less distinct than modern nickel and black carbon steel damascener.
It show more like the blade on very old Japanese Tachi and Katana swords which where made with a similar method (but with an additional step for adding in layers ofthe high carbon pieces, which armor probably did not had but one can still see the lines of the welding patterns on a sheet of bloom iron).
I don't know for how long armor where made this way, but at least i think it still where in the early mediveal time in may places.
I am not sure, but i think in the late 1300 and 1400 bloom iron where probably a lot less common and replaced by a method described as puddle/pole steel (where the lump where aired with wooden and orin bars in the purifying process of cast iron bars/pig iron which where re melted and the coal burnt out and replaced with surface coal from the forge, the Valloon smelters used a similar method long in the 1940s here, but in 1950 the Valoon method finaly died out, the last batch where actually produced not far from where i live and it was shipped ower to the United States), the predessesor of the Lancashire method for making wroght iron, but i think even with that metod it would show a similar pattern as more modern wroght iron so those damascener like lines where probably still there on a very close look.
It had been super cool to see a reconstruction made from bloom iron, but unfortunately my body and brain is not what it once where whan i was younger, but i would gladly teach what i know if somone younger where interested in giving it a try!
@@sakesaurus I believe it's a matter of cost vs benefit. Modern steel is enough better that the added improvement is not worth the work. But it is a guess
I was so expecting him to say "I don't know what it is in English. The "hole" where the "key" goes." But alas, I now can't say "So close, just flip it around. It's a key hole."
Cheap armor was still fitted for the Spearman and it might have been second hand plate armor refitted to the owner plus it usually didn't cover the entire body but at least the chest area which was the most important area of the body. It wasn't modern day thin metal sheets like cosplay armor. There's a reason bowmen of the era trained a lot and targeted specific part of the armor. They target the holes or weak spots in the armor because breast plates were made to protect the vital areas. But if you able to target let say around the armpit well that can kill. The helms also were made in a specific way to protect as best as possible but if you can target the ocular holes or the breathing holes well damn you killed a guy. But that's easier said than done in the heat of battle and it requires a ton of training
Thats why those with cheap armor used shields, to block arrows. Those who had better armor would fight with two handed weapons.
We still use armour today. It made a big comeback in the last 40 years. Obviously, it isn’t the same as the 17th century. I wore body armour on all my deployments. Had soft body armour during my tenure in law enforcement.
Weapons vs. armour has always been an interesting competition. At time one side dominated and at others it was somewhat balanced.
Even prisoners use paper body armour for anti-shank defense
Lars Anderson “historical” videos should always be watched with popcorn
And alcohol.
The Lars video would have been like a channel on armored vehicles saying "I'm going to show how a WW1 British Mk1 tank could be defeated by depleted uranium sabot rounds.".
Moreso "I bought a small toy remote control tank, now let me shoot at it with a hand gun."
I've watched enough archery channels, doing debunking videos of Lars channel that I tend to take anything on his channel with not a grain of salt, but a whole salt shaker.
Jup!
He's a straight up con artist, been taking advantage impressing people ignorant on the topic of archery since the start.
I agree with you! A circus performer.
His chatter is just bad...@@LostBeetle
I just blocked his chanel after first of his videos I seen about historical archery
but it finds its way to me through other channels debunking all the sh...t he ewer tells
There's an excellent video by Schwerpunkt that illustrates the matter from the perspective of the actual tactics and Art of War rather than the usual "engineer" mode, which I strongly recommend
Sir Tony of Hawke - mount your steed and lets ollie forth into battle!
How the skateboard transformed the use of cavalry units in the 13th century
Honestly, Lars should stop making claims about history. He’s been consistently wrong and sometimes his claims were outright fraudulent.
Since when?
@@whiteeye3453 Since the beginning of time.
@@coffeefox5703 right after we harnessed fire
@@coffeefox5703 haha that's funny
But seriously he was never wrong
In fact he rediscover many akncient lost archery techniques
LOL says him@@whiteeye3453
I watched it 1 yr ago
And commented that their title is 'misleading". And tell other ppl about there is a disclaimer at the end of video.
I thought he made the video with "click bait" intention but i will give him the benefit of doubt.
Now Metatron makes a video about that one particular clip and im glad that he watched like i did, until the end of that clip and notice that the last piece of clip should be put at start of video. Well done sir.
You know what changed history of armoured warfare? Guns. They didn't need some fancy modern bows when they had handguns as far back as late 14th - early15th century! xD For example Hussites were so effective against armoured knights, because they were early adopters of handguns, which they called "píšťala", which later created the word "pistol", or "houfnice", which became "howitzer". And they used them on armoured war wagons or with tower shields.
Oh and we can't forget Osman Turks who were unstoppable for the same reason.
Öhm… NO. firearms uswd in the 14th, 15th century where not effective against armor. Even jn the 16. century.
Speaking of testing armors, would it be possible for you to discuss the functionality of Gondorian soldier's armor from the LOTR films as if they were real? Also how to fix its problems.
Making them thicker instead of tin setpiece.
@victoriazero8869 True, I knew that much. I guess I just figured we would look at the design of the armor. Treat it as though it were battlefield steel or iron and then discuss things it does well and things that need improvement.
The bow modifications are roughly like saying "We're going to remove the pistol grip from this sub machine gun because historically muskets didn't have them, so we can show how awesome a sub machine gun would have been in the 1700s."
Interesting video. I loved the Arrow vs. armor videos from Tod and they gave a lot to think about it. I was not aware of the Lars Anderson Video until now and even it was wrong in so many cases, like Metatron had said allready, there are two things to take with:
Increasing the weight of the arrow (by changing wood shaft to metall) increases the kinetic energy. What we don't know, what the metall rod had weight in comparison to the wooden one. And we don't know, what the speed difference between both was. (The english longbow arrows were thicker and a bit heavier (if I'm not wrong, about 85g) than normal arrows, and therefore the bows had a stronger drawweight to shoot the heavier arrows properly. And the thicker arrows flex less than thinner ones. Why? Because they were designed to penetrate armour (they go through mail and gambeson) and the armourer reacted to that, by designing plate armour. That's why parts of armour survived over such a long time. It was just an arms race.
The other nice idea was the moving ehm.."knight". That point is not easy to replicate in a safe and not too complicated way in the setup Tod had chosen and would additionaly create the problem with consitency. But the motive of a moving target has some interesting aspect, because you add the speed of the moving target to the speed of the incoming arrow, and that gave the arrow more impact energy and could potentialy increase the ability of penetrating. Would be interesting to test it in a serious way. (the quite lame skateboard doesn't look like much and would not represent an incoming horse, but it did influence the energy of the modified arrow in the Lars Anderson stunt, because the increase of speed influenzes the kinertic energy by the square.)
Armor testing is hard, I wouldn't expect just anyone to be able to create a good setup to get accurate results. Good thing we have a lot of different voices on the subject to balance out the discussion and the find the truth. Thanks Metatron for your contributions, your level-headed analytics are always welcome.
At least with the Tod Cutler videos, they studied manuals of how the armour was made and what was actually worn (chainmail under the breastplate, fabric under the chainmail, thicker chainmail around the throat) and of course, a shield. This one was just a cheap helmet and breastplate, so they didn't even do the most basic of research. It was basically an infomercial for the bow.
@@handsolo1209 todd pretty much proved it, you are NOT getting through proper steel plate with arrows. that said, the energy still transfers, even if the arrow didnt go into the guy, he still felt the impact. blunt force and psychological force, even if there was no penetration.
@@handsolo1209 they also picked a particular well documented battle (Agincourt) and used arrows and arrowhead designs from the Mary Rose of roughly the same era. Also they based the armour on existing versions. It was so thorough. Feel like a rewatch.
If you can't create a good setup why even test it at all? What's the point of a test you already know is inaccurate? Sure you might have people like Metatron who speak up against it, but then the damage is already done. You will have people who saw the test and didn't see this video, so all they have is the test to go by and now they are incredibly misinformed.
I think the only time period where body armor was really obsolete was from the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. Firearms became so powerful that there was just no way to reliably protect a soldier AND have him able to move himself around on his own power with the materials (steel) available. But even then you had flak jackets, to protect from shrapnel, and helmets, to protect the heads when peaking over cover (allthough, getting hit by a full power rifle (like a Mosin Nagant or a Mauser 98) will (depending on impact angle) give you a concussion, break your neck, bash in your skull or go clean through the front of the helmet, possibly through the back as well, but definetly everything in between). And in WW1 they even had some assault squads wearing brestplates to protect them from shotguns and pistols/SMGs, once they entered the trenches. But in general, body armor was obsolete in this time frame. On any other period armor was at least generally preferred to going unarmoured, unless speed or endurance was the top priority.
Yes, that IS the slowest cavalry charge one could think of. Also at the range where the arrow penetrates the 'armor', the archer would still be also impaled by a lance. Maybe wounding a charging knight when he, his horse and his lance are 2.5 metres away from you is pretty close for comfort ...
I watched that one Tod's video with longbow.
Just by looking at the other video's thumbnail, it's clear that it was a tin can armor.
Fun fact, arrows penetrate better down range after the paradox settles. This has to do with the spine or stiffness of the arrow. In general, at approx 0-15 yards, you will see less penetration than at 16 and beyond, up to a certain extent of course. In an arrow barrage from distance, say 50-80 yards, medieval archers would have potentially gotten better penetration than at point blank because their arrows would be flying much straighter upon impact. Another factor would be broadhead choice. The golden ratio in arrow heads is 3:1 or the head being 3 times as long as it is wide. This has proven to be optimal for penetration and strength. Man kind through trial and error has always kept their heads near this ratio. Small tweaks are made depending on the intended use.
Metatron is getting pretty darn good at intros and comedy skits
Metatron ,Another flaw in the test is that a knight would be on horseback so the target would be bouncing up an down insead of a station target in the X and Y axis that provides a much easier target to hit since it is only moving in the Z axis and the so called target is not posing a threat of killing the archer with a sword or a lance or war hammer which would present the archer with much more stressful enviroment were if the archer missed he would be dead.
Not always. English dismounted to fight on foot, and at Agincourt many of the French also dismounted.
@@docstockandbarrel That is good to know however you would still be moving in a more pronounced up and down motion
especially in the mud at Agiacourt or any terrain that was not billiard table flat.
@@rickmckee8270 yeah, in that particular battle they weren't moving very fast because the mud was thick and they were eating from all sides, but it wasn't the bowmen that killed them, over 2k were taken prisoner and Henry had his men cut their throats.
Skateboards, that ladies and gentlemen in where the French went wrong at Agincourt.
I always thought that say at Agincourt, the Amount of arrows loosed at the French, not the arrows 'penetrating' armour,men and horses caused the real chaos. Startled horses , the terrain which funneled the French together , wich made their charge ineffective, and which resulted in them trying to charge in a man made blizzard of projectiles, which with momentum unhorsed many. Then the lighter archers literally murdered them. Anyway, as for a longbow arrow from the period penetrating armour? It depends too on the period ? A fifteenth century fully armoured knight no,his horse though may take a few which could unhorse or 'unplatform him' but penetration of the armour no.
Whatever your girlfriend tells you, thickness does matter, for armor.
On a more serious note, Indian smiths do sometimes make very good armor.
Also, those arrows are really sticking out a lot. What is behind it that keeps them from getting further in? Because those look like they wouldn't go deep enough to hurt the person inside.
Few people appreciate what armor actually is. It's not just sheet metal. Armor is a material formulated and engineered to resist penetration by weapons. For example, in the development process of WWII tanks, it was standard practice to build a prototype of a tank from mild steel in order to realize the design that had formerly existed only as scale drawings in three dimensions and full-sized. The proposed engine, drivetrain, and suspension would be installed in the mock-up to test the fit and function. Likewise, the mock-up might also receive an installation of the proposed main gun to test its fit, traverse, and elevation. To the casual eye, such a mock-up might be mistaken for a functional tank. But without the use of armor-quality steel, the mock-up could be easily destroyed.
There is another factor that have been left out which Tod workshop also included was how far the arrow penetrated the armour when it did as there are plenty of times when an arrow did pen the armour, but they also debated weather how far the arrow went in if it would have been a fatal shot or an injury that would really hurt. Yes there are other clips where they did pen armour and also different types of armour and even different grades of steel equivalent to medieval period and also different types of arrow heads. Worth watching
Reminds me of how some Muslim sources describe the crusader knights looking like porcupines but still able to fight without problem. Maybe an exaggeration but still.
So Lars....ehhh, but the idea of a historical what if, such as "what if a primitive rubber could be mass produced in 1368" because there's modern materials so ubiquitous that we (the collective mass of western civilization) can seldom imagine life without these materials.
And so trying to use near historical or fully historical means to try and recreate modern products (such as rubber) and then seeing if we can modify a historical item,such as a Flintlock, with the material and seeing if it would have been viable. That sounds like a cool idea to explore just to see how small changes could have possibly impacted history, and not via the assumption of "just use metal arrows" but going "how hard would it have been to make rubber in say 1368, and then could we have used it it to make for example a breach-loading flintlock."
Not all arrows are the same. At Crecy the English archers used a lighter and smaller arrow head to shoot at longer distances. Most of the French knights taken down were because their horses where hit by arrows, killing, wounding, or causing them to bolt. So the knight would fall off, and because it rained heavily, they lost footing in the muddy ground, and could not get up with that heavy armor on. They were captured or killed by the archers who shoved a knife through their visor. Also, curves on the armor could deflect the point of a arrow.
When they pulled the arrows from the “armor” you could hear how thin the helmet was
Having seen Tod's Arrows vs Armor videos (both series), the video that you are commenting on would have left one phrase stuck in my head on a seemingly infinite loop.
.
"Yeah, but what about...?"
.
The devil is in the details.
Imagine how history would have changed if they had 50 cal machine guns at Agincourt. Anyone could shoot through armor with those! :P
I've played fantasy ttrpgs since '81 and it kead to a lot of reading and research. The amount of metal above ground in the assorted periods we call medieval is jaw dropping. There is a reason why the field of economics say "only present, serviceable goods can satisfy current demands for satisfaction of human desire." Indeed an accurate test requires goods or resources and materials of an equivalent nature.
I’m fan of yours Metatron, but some of your criticisms here are so bogus that they hurt your overall claim.
Sawing off the rest wasn’t done for authenticity, it was merely to help this modern bow meet the fast reload requirement that he posits for a practical mediaeval war bow.
His motorised skateboard doesn’t pretend to fully simulate an actual armoured warrior. He doesn’t have an actual armoured warrior. But it simulates one important characteristic of an armoured warrior i.e. that he is moving towards you at a realistic speed. This kind of rough and ready partial simulation is a very common and entirely reasonable approach that engineers use for testing.
Anyone can shoot through armor. The invention that changed history! ... is smokeless gunpowder.
16:05
"If there had been bows and arrows that could easily shoot through armour, there would've been no knights in armour..."
Wow. That's intelligent and very thought out. Like, military and law enforcement not wearing.........Oh, wait.😒
Anyone can shoot through armor....with this bazooka. The invention that would have changed history...
Also at 9:07 Metatron goes full into Monty Python mode. Lol
It is worth pointing out that we are still using armor. Since about 1916 with the reintroduction of steel helmets, at least.
What I would like to see is what effect the arrows would have on the arms, hands and legs. A knight with arrows in his appendages wouldn’t be very effective.
"Because that's not armor!" Dude, that's armor.
“There would be no knights in armor if these arrows existed.”
Sure. Just like we stopped issuing kevlar and ceramic plates because .50 BMG is a thing.
To your point that we still use armor in a different form. It's true but its still very similar. As an american I own a plate carrier. Its very shape with ceramic plates and side plates is very closely shaped to a cuirass so we've almost come full circle in design.
Uh,if you're an archer with the little armor and weapons they had for close up fighting and a man at arms in armor,or even more so a knight on his horse,and he's that close, you are either running for your life or you are already a casualty.Even if you fight it will be with your backup weapon ,if you have one.
4:52 yes, it's you being to critical, he's saying on the video he did it to shoot faster and in motion.
16:26 don't arrows have more energy (and thus more penetration) than arquebus bullets due to mass?
he didnt modify it to be more historically accurate, he did it so he can shoot it faster
If carbon fiber bows and strings together with high grade light steel arrows were available I am sure the medieval knights would have used ceramic plates and Kevlar for armor!
even on top of using poor quality armor there are several other errors in the testing as the plate wouldn't have been the only armor that they wore and the knight would know of the weaknesses so looking at an archers with bow draw i find it likely that he'd place himself so that the parts facing the archer would be those that are more difficult to penetrate or the angle the archer would hit from would be more difficult(such as lowering the head to make it more difficult to hit anything other than the skull cap).
Not related to armor. That shot (13:25) going down the cortidor with all the torches. How come in movies etc we never see the guy that goes around lighting or replacing them when they burn out. Even in abandoned "lost" tombs or tunnels. 😅 Did they run down to James the Torch Sellers shop for eternal torches?
I've heard at the start of the ACW a lot of soldiers had body armor but discarded it fairly quickly in part because they weren't really used to marching significant distances carrying it. How useful it was at that point is also a question.
Thanks again for these videos that help correct some of the misinformation that's out there.
And then the Winged Hussars arrived........
When he pulled that arrow out it sounded like a tin can.
Also, it looks like the armor where they shot through is flat as a board: this means the arrow does not have the chance to glance off.
Look how well our modern bow with metal arrows can pierce this trashcan up to a depth of couple of centimeters. Most of the time anyways. Let's not mention the chainmal and gambeson that are usually layered underneath the plate itself...
It's funny to think of these videos testing modern weapons against medieval armor..
Why just a compound bow? Jump a few decades before the compound bow's invention, and you got tank rifles and 155mm cannons.
"What if English Longbowman had a 14 inch Howitzer?"
I found that video recently while searching for sintered tungsten carbide arrowheads - to see if somebody has tried those against proper medieval armor. Not historical, just out of curiosity. ... Was disappointed that it's more of "let's use heavier arrows against costume armor".
Frog jumpscare maked me really scared
it is only me but did not the sound of the arrow penetrate the "armor" maid about same sound as it penetrate the tin-can?
Didn't Slawa from Art of Armor shoot an actual harness he made as real functional armour from hardened steel? As i remember the arrow did bounce off when he used a single piece bow which where made from the pattern and same type of material (dvs cerfully selected wood, scraped and not cut the fibers) as actualy finds.
As always I think you are right Metatron. I get cracked up by the so called "armor" they use in their tests.
I mean, yes, a knight on a skateboard, and only one, coming at you at such slow speeds than a toddler would be able to race him, oh, the intimidation! The fear!
Now, recreate the experiment with a hundred knights, coming at top speed, weapons and shields in hand, determined to kill you because you are just a lowborn and a nuisance to their way of life, and then, even if you are in a formation with, let's say, two hundred bowmen, try all of them to maintain cohesion and do trick shots to kill each and every one of those knights, without getting nervous, without routing, because if you miraculously kill, let's say, seventy-five of those knights, damn, even nineteen, you will still need to fight with almost no armor, and no long-range weapons like spears and the like, a staggering x amount of full plated were killing machines that would have butchered you without a second thought and would have made quick work of you and your fellow men. It is easy to say stuff like "I would have won against a knight", yeah, you wouldn't, because they came in numbers, not alone, you would have been at the mercy of lady luck at the end of the day if you were not supported by infantry or fellow knights.
Still, Jesus that's a great archer! But I think that, if I were a lord, I would have treasured it... for spectacle and hunt purposes, really, I better use a thousand average skilled archers in battle than risk losing the one that can entertain me and my court all life. Still, I like videos like this, they are entertaining and show the talent of this archer... if they say the important part at the beginning of the video it would have been more cool tho xD
For context, Lars has gone on record claiming to have "rediscovered" a number of "lost secrets" of ancient archery. These alleged "secrets" are about 50/50 on whether he stumbles across a totally mundane fact about historical archery that he didn't know about because he's only ever researched a modern olympic-style sport archery, or makes something up that's not applicable to historical archery no matter how many times he tries to pretend he knows what he's talking about better than actual experts on the subject.
That said, your complaint about his bow modification is missing the point in the video. The design of the bow aids in accuracy, something Lars can compensate for with skill, but impairs firing speed for someone with the specific archery style Lars uses. He modified the bow to remove one specific modern convenience which makes his archery style slower, while not compromising the advantages the modern bow provides in other areas.
Going back to why Lars is a problem though... this is kind of important. He has at times claimed directly, and more frequently implied without being so direct, that archers of the ancient world through feudal and medieval eras and into the age of gunpowder across the world shared a singular unified technique which has since been "lost" and was used consistently by all archers with all kinds of bows and all designs of arrows against all targets at all ranges without any exceptions. This is, of course, his "secret" technique of using significantly less than a full draw to rapid-fire arrows while still retaining high precision, but sacrificing a significant amount of the potential stopping power of the weapon in doing so. While there's strong evidence this technique was used frequently with shortbows of various kinds in many parts of the world (and is still in use today in some existing schools of traditional archery with unbroken lineages dating back centuries), there's also evidence that it was mostly used by highly-experienced archers, and typically in close range skirmish encounters rather than at longer ranges or in larger-scale battles.
He completely dismisses the demonstrable recorded facts that longer bows with higher draw weight were far more rarely used with this technique, because they were the equivalent of sniper weapons or artillery depending on how they were used. Longbows and other beavyweight bows were most commonly either going for extremely precise single shots by a lone expert archer, or massed volleys of coordinated shots by a group, both of which scenarios benefit from a more measured and power-focused approach with a full or near-full draw to make the most of the weapons' capabilities. He also flagrantly ignores existing historical archery styles with unbroken heritage tracing back to eras of war where the techniques were developed, and where valid practical reasons not to train the way he does in several regards have been passed on through the ages and are still taught to this day.
He's a very capable and skilled archer with a particular expertise in a specific style of rapid-fire trick shooting, but his biggest claim to fame is a mix of willful ignorance and research so poor I'd almost argue it qualifies as fraudulent instead of just negligent misinformation. He's been advised numerous times by various experts about why he's wrong, and like a conspiracy theorist, takes every word of criticism as proof that some nebulous "they" is trying to suppress his secret knowledge and hide it from the world, instead of admitting that maybe he could be wrong about something related to archery because he's the world's foremost expert now after rediscovering so many not-actually-lost and not-actually-hidden "secrets" that "they" don't want you to know for unknowable but presumably nefarious reasons.
You are forgetting that he doesn't rest the arrow on his bow hand the way that an English archer would, he rests the arrow as if he were shooting from horseback. It should be rested on the index finger and NOT the thumb. Note that I am English and shoot with a longbow. It is interesting to note that none of the bows used is really an English longbow, they are Welsh ones! What is the difference? You ask. Well an English longbow, as depicted in medieval art, has a recurve to it!
Reach out to them and try to do a collaboration video. That’d be interesting
I wonder if having an AR-15 with armor piercing bullets in medieval times could have prevented knights on the battlefield.
Next video: "How Guns Could Have Changed History."
"And here, we can see how an M200 can penetrate Italian armor from 1450."
I always considered firearms to be the deciding factor where medieval armor is concerned. Another great critique of a very poorly crafted video Sir! Modern bows are also quite powerful at close ranges, but the arrows quickly drop off after fifty yards. In my opinion, the traditional English longbow would outperform a modern 70# compound bow at longer ranges. And even wooden arrows, if they are properly matched to the draw weight of a bow do a fine job in delivering their energy to the target. They are a little slower in flight than modern carbon arrows, but they are heavier and still carry a lot of kinetic energy.
This reminds me of that history channel show “Conquest”. They were testing on a low grade costume breast plate stabbing through it. Conquest was funny but I did like the host.
Might as well be shooting through stormtrooper armour.
You know darn well Lars and company know they’re being disingenuous with these videos because they never mention anything that could possibly debunk what they’re saying. If Lars said it was costume armor, or that making all metal arrows 400 years ago wasn’t feasible then people would be asking “then what does this test prove.” Weird thing about that: the exact kind of people who could disprove what Lars and company are saying are the exact kind of people who make up his audience…and Metatron’s.
I've read from previous comments that this lars guy is a con artist or a very big lier at least, is this true?
@@ElishaFollet I don’t know. He’s a bow and arrow trick shooter (pirouette while shooting through the eye slit?). Dude can just about take the wings off a fly. Nothing wrong with that, but when a professional modern bowman completely discounts history when criticizing historical weapons and armor, it creates the impression he was more concerned with his visibility and getting clicks than being honest and genuine about his assertions in the video. Like saying “metal arrows can defeat all armor” while discounting how difficult it would be to make them en masse 500 years ago and simultaneously using what amounts to costume armor as a test bed for them.
Arrows vs Armor is much more accurate because the bow, arrows, armor and distances tested are all based on historical records and real life examples of the weapons and armor used. It’s as close to the real events as they could make it without actually going back in time and witnessing it firsthand.
I have shot modern expensive reproduction armor with a very powerful modern compound bow, it barely scratched it and all that happened was I wasted about $100 in exploding my arrows.
You said it Do it right or don't do it...really the only thing Tod and his team left was what hundreds of arrows ,by hundreds of bowmen
What Todd's video showed was how unlikely it would be to penetrate armor no matter how many archers. Using your logic you'd have to add just as many targets. Read the actual accounts of the battle. People hear the statement that the longbowmen won the battle of Agincourt and assume it was with their archery but that wasn't the case. Two waves of French knights made it through the volleys of arrows and engaged the English foot. The pressure from the second wave caused the English line to be pushed back and just before it broke the bowmen engaged in melee from the flanks and saved the day. The bowmen won the battle with hand weapons, not arrows.
Fun Fact is that i watched this video not long ago, and stated that it was total clickbait, despite the skills of the archer .
I was like ; "How is that stuff even considered historical/realistic ?!"
Dude claiming all long that this bow would "defeat a knight", that "knights in armor would not even exist" because it is too powerful, "Would have changed history" and stuff, just to add a little text in THE END, that it is NOT realistic or historical ?! Come on !
That's clearly mocking the audience at this point ! 🤬
Also Metatron be like ; "Guys, you stink, here, have a 55% off for some perfume ."
😆
"Anyone can shoot through armor. The invention that would have changed the world." Is the invention the M855 steel core? I think that might have helped.
I'm not a blacksmith nor am I a master forger, but what I am is someone with over twenty years experience in the steel industry. As an avid bow hunter and rifle hunter I can tell you that the "armor" he was using in the video might have been aluminum, but it sounded more like it was a cheap tin based metal. I've shot plenty of tin and aluminum cans in target practice and that sound was really close to a heavy tin based sound. I don't know this guy or his channel and don't care to, but his "testing" seemed pretty bogus to me.
If you do the test with a nice, good late medieval gothic plate armor - hand-made from hardened steel - the following would happen: absolutely nothing. Maybe there would be an ugly scratch. Or even a tiny dent. Oh, by the way, the same thing would happen if you used a crossbow, axe or sword. Absolutely nothing. I would take note of the blow, but that's all. You fight against armor differently - look for weaknesses, for example between the plates, throw the opponent off balance. Even high-quality ring armor can stop arrows from causing fatal wounds. Sure, if you use some Coke can armor from India...
I would like to see how it turns out when you run down knights in armor with a car. It would have changed history!
Where are the Mythbusters when you need them??? 🤣 Thanks, Metatron! Amusing video.
I recently came across this video too... thanks for the video response, always great to hear your views
indeed, bows led to the invention of armor, but not to the disappearance...
had a freind when i was a kid had that huge tapestry hanging on his wall
Escutcheon is the name of the keyhole cover in UK sounds french to me....
Ok knights on skateboards sounds awesome in a Mel brooks kind of way.
Other videos have been published by professional archers shooting accurately reproduced bodkin arrows using a 120-pound draw English longbow and accurately reproductions of French armor. The result? Not even a single arrow penetrated, or even made a significant dent in, the armor plate. Does this prove the English longbow was completely ineffective against armor? No.
We know that the English longbow was effective in combat against the French chivalry at the Battle of Agincourt. From historical accounts, we know that the English archers fired about 250,000 arrows during the battle. We also know the English archers were deployed on hillsides along the flanks of the English forces toward Agincourt and Tramecourt, and the majority of the arrows were fired at the weakest points of the armor (the thinnest plate and openings). If the English longbow and bodkin arrows had been ineffective against armor, then this would have been proven at the Battle of Crece in 1311 and neither would have still been in use by 1415. Instead, we know that the English longbow is properly attributed as being responsible for the victory at the Battle of Agincourt.
I've yet to see an accurate test of the English longbow with bodkin tipped arrows as manufactured and AS USED IN BATTLE during the period. Archers were aligned along the flanks of the enemy and fired in volleys to target all points from knee to throat in efforts to wound or kill the enemy. Cutting an artery in a leg will effectively kill a man on a battlefield just as surely as hitting a vital organ. Volley fire from both sides prevented an armored knight from dodging all incoming arrows or blocking them with his shield.
From my understanding of history, medieval knights did, indeed, try using skateboards in battle, but after a few losses they switched to horses. Not having to recharge the horse was a big plus.
There IS a single invention that if they only had this invention they could pierce plate armour almost 100% of the time, I call it the arquebus! Am I not brilliant? Clever thing is that an archer with minimal training could use this magnificent invention of mine with lethal effectiveness. My invention would have changed history!!!!
Looks like 1mm at best mild steel costume. Easily punctured by a thrown knife.
I'm a traditional archer. I shoot an English longbow made of yew. I've seen videos by Lars before. He is a great trick shot, but he is not a tradiitional archer. His release may work for his trick shots but in traditional archery his release is terrible, as is his form in general. Your critique of his video is very accurate. And many of the things said in Lars video are not true or accurate at all. For example, in the beginning of his video it is stated that "Modern bows with wheel gearing transfer much more power to the arrow".
It would take far too long here to explain well, but that statement made my brain bleed. (The distance of motion and flexing of the long wooden limbs and a heavy wooden arrow are very different than a modern compoind bow with gears and short limbs shooting graphite or aluminum arrows).
There's nothing like using modern technology and materials to defeat protection from 1500 years ago....time travel, anyone?
So basically the video was what if the industrial revolution occurred before proper firearms, as that is pretty much the only way your getting cheap mass quantiles of metal to make arrows/bolts completely out of. Not to mention why wouldn't you just use that tech on a crossbow which is much more user friendly without high degrees of training.
That mounted knight is, at best, walking slowly towards the enemy. With a 12ft lance I think I might hit, or be close to hitting the archer on the first shot, but definitely the second one. One arrow is not going to stop me or the horse. Maybe the arrow through the eye might kill quickly, but probably not fast enough to stop my lance killing you.
Hey Jason! Very true! I didn't even think about the length of the lance. Besides, in plenty of historical helmets the ocularia are much thinner than that. I still appreciate his skill for pulling that one off, but the skateboard charge looked more like a pleasant walk in the park.
@@metatronyt Lars is super skillful absolutely, and his video is entertaining, but maybe not so useful to understand the ebb and flow of a medieval battlefield. Lars, if you read this, I'm super impressed by your archery by the way!
Often Lars seems to use the cheapo costume armors in his tests, and even the eye slits seems to be lot bigger than historical
Unfortunately, spectacle is like a lie; it gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.
A.mounted knight is moving as fast as the horse will carry him
An unmounted knight might be walking slowly
Just got done explaing the concept of armor to my family.
They believed armor can be slashed by daggers and pierced by any random arrow.
6 years ago, that was me, thinking fantasy rpg games were super accurate to real life😅
Actually, armor can be slashed through with a dagger, but only by me, or someone as powerful as me (if such a person exists).
"They believed armor can be slashed by daggers"
STABBED through with daggers, absolutely. Stabbed through EASILY? Heck no. And later "bulletproof" or "bullet resistant" armor needs massive force behind a dagger to punch through, generally far beyond what a normal person can manage at all, much less manage in combat.
And heck, even just being a really high quality armor makes a huge difference, but over 99% of combatants who wore armor historically, didn't have high quality armor, hell, most of them didn't even have QUALITY armor.
"and pierced by any random arrow."
Well, technically, yes they can. As long as the arrow has enough force and doesn't hit the stronger parts of the armor or at a bad angle.
It was literally impossible to make an armor good enough to be impenetrable everywhere from any direction. But if the armor can lose 10% weight by being penetrable in locations that are less than 0.1% like to be hit, that's generally a perfectly agreeable tradeoff.
So if the guy in the armor has to do a handstand split for an arrow to hit a weak point allowing it to pierce the armor, well, that's still "any random arrow" being CAPABLE of piercing it.
The amount of false information conveyed by films and video games is overwhelming. And it's perfectly normal to be fooled.
In fact, I think we've all been there.
@@Supreme_Debaucher Are you having doubts about your own existence?
Slashing through armor with a dagger would be a waste of time: daggers, dirks and other long knives would only be useful if you could penetrate a weak link, a hole, etc. And unless you are attacking from behind, it's doubtful a trained soldier would leave those weakness exposed.
And I would love to see someone perform a trick shot with an arrow like in the video, only with an actual historical representation. A battle with a dozen plus combatants, a half ton horse fully clad in mail, with an armored and shielded knight. There's so much chaos to an actual battlefield and a real horse that is weaving left and right, bobbing up and down, it would have to be a 1 in a billion shot to shoot the eyehole.
Most fantasy games really put the emphasis on making you more human than human, but I'll take a gritty realistic pain in the ass game any day.
Damn This was something I had on the list to get around too but you beat us to it..The armor was some cheap Larp Steel, Not heat treated and not very thick sounds like a tin can when the arrows hit it and when being removed.
Does not matter, do it anyway
Looking forward to seeing your take mate :)
You got the green light from Metatron, I’m certain fans of both channels would love to see it as well! Just make sure Shad doesn’t hurt his back.
It would be deliciously ironic to see "Boromir" fail to be harmed by arrows. 😂
The world is full of 'i was gonna' s
This looks like one of those cable shows that claimed a katana could cut through European medieval armour. They are shooting arrows through a car bonnet.
I think car bonnets actually might be thicker than this “armor.” 😂
Katanas can melt through steel beams, And kill Gods! Don't underestimate the power of Anime.
@@ExtreamClownTown Oh look the definition of fictional power fantasy!
@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 There’s a reason why JRPG have you fight gods.
Meanwhile katanas couldn't parry longsword since the katana would shatter lol
So I haven't watched the video yet. But I can tell you as a 17th century history buff that armors were proofed with firearms, there was musket rated armor and pistol rated armor a lot of the bullet dents that people see in the armor thinking that they got them in combat was actually what was called back then the proof mark. I'm sure you're going to state this though already now to watch your video
I see we are talking about archery not muskets. Lol
Oh well
@@Real11BangBang still, your commentary its a really interesting piece of information!
Exactly! Bullet-proof
@@gamediverbr and it really doesn't matter because I guarantee you that a 75 caliber or larger matchlock loaded with the period correct charge of the weight of the ball and powder which is 440 grains Is definitely going to be more powerful than any war bow Mind you, the powder wasn't as good as more modern equivalents but I have made myself some 17th century style of powder and it still lobs a 69 caliber musket ball at about 1800 feet per second.
I don't think anyone is talking about arrows vs armour past the 15-16th century. By that time as we know armour was specifically made to be bulletproof.
If Lars tried selling this armor to a medieval lord he'd be drawn and quartered for fraud.
what if the armor is actually thick and real medieval representation? you dont know, so dont draw conclusions
🤣😁😂
@@trader2137it’s not
@@trader2137except it’s very clear the “armor” in his video is a costume piece. It’s not shaped properly at all, and that’s immensely important. And going off the quality of the shaping, it’s likely not great steel either.
@@trader2137 It's a Nauticalmart cuirass. They're made of 18ga (1.2mm) untreated stainless steel.