Mr.Vojtik You're joking, right? They were a huge improvement over bows in that they allowed untrained infantry to fire projectiles that could fairly easily pierce plate mail. They are the exact middle ground between bows and simple muskets.
Except you forget that a crossbow was hard to reload, while a bow in the hands of someone skilled enough to use could fire 6 shots a minute, while a crossbow would only be 1 per minute
The truth is slightly more complicated. Crossbows were extremely useful because they allowed a mob of untrained peasants with a month of drilling to go tow to tow with master archers, and win assuming equal amounts of money going into both armies (this includes the cost of raising and training master archers). They could also be quickly rallied as levies, and training was far less strenuous allowing effective usage by a militia. The problem was that the Warrior Elite, usually knights in Western Europe, saw this as a direct threat to their power. They had centuries to gain influence over their lords by leveraging their use in the military, but these new weapons threatened the "natural order". So they were deliberately under-used, sometimes only being used as a act of desperation, so the Warrior elite could maintain their power. The rise of centralized realms in the early renaissance could have saw a switch to crossbowmen as a primary weapon of war, but the rise of practical fire-arms like the arquebus saw the large scale usage of their replacements instead.
thorff1 To compare bows and crossbows is to compare assault rifles and sniper rifle. multiple weak shots X one strong. You can't say that one is better, or if you dare take unloaded crossbow and I will take unloaded bow, let's see who'll win then.
Dalton, Dalton, Dalton. It is not the pommel itself that carries the power. It is the *_sword_* having its *_pommel_* be *_unscrewed_* and then thrown, that gives the pommel its power. Without all 3 of those components together, they are all lumps of metal in varying conditions.
As someone who is a history buff, has a bachelors degree in history, wrote my longest college paper (20 pages) on the reasons for the transition between longbow and firearm, and is incredibly interested in the use of historical weaponry and therefore has done a bunch of research, I give you _Full_ marks for research. The only thing I heard which could be contested as incorrect on the subject of weapons and combat is that you didn't clarify that longbow arrows cannot pass completely through well made steel plate and are very unlikely to penetrate subsequent layers of armor and padding regardless even if they wedge themselves in, but I assume that was from a lack of time; same with an explanation of dual wielding.
The only real problem is the medical aspect; it was certainly iffier and you certainly could die from a random cut, but it wasn't like you usually would. Hell, they had the treatment of slashes and cuts pretty much down (just without modern antibiotics), but you simply can't treat arrows or stab wounds the same way. That and their immune systems were heartier. Thus I can understand that you'd think that after reading the sources you did. All is forgiven.
The guy is an idiot. He does not know shit! Not about Longbows, and not about Medieval history. Also, he really overestimated Hydrostatic Shock. Believe it or not, HS is definitely not one of the main contributors of death for ballistic trauma.
***** I wouldn't exactly call it extensive, but no I don't. And I love swords, think they'd be usable today even. The big difference is that swords were usually not a primary weapon in actual combat (exceptions exist, but the rule is pretty reliable). They are the quintessential sidearm, a secondary weapon; the bow is a primary weapon. It's perhaps an uneven comparison, but that's the reality of things which is constantly portrayed wrongly. And hell, the balance is always towards ranged weapons just because you can use them without melee weapons being used on you.
+farmerboy916 Swords were also expensive as hell. Certain troops and certain swords were primary weapons though. No army, that I know of, had enough resources to equip their entire army with swords.
+qwerty qwerty No, swords are oddly specific barely used weapons in medeveal combat, the most used weapons were axes since peasants already owned the, bows and spears because hunters had them. Swords were either highly elite units or rich duelers in the late medeveal to early renassiance period.
Dear Austin......wtf is wrong with Storm Trooper Armor? What i mean by that is, what exactly is it good for? Armor in anny age, should be there to protect you from the harms of weapons used by your enemys. Like in this Video the heavy armor was designed to protect against swords and arrows, shouldn´t the storm trooper armor be designed to protect against blaster shoots? but they don´t....in fact they wont evan protect them from freaking ewoks wielding stone spears. a simple leather jacket would do a better job. so why do stormtroopers bother wearing that poor excuse for an armor anyways? sincearly, Alexandra
Stormtrooper armour is incredibly effective against blaster bolts. It's designed to spread the impact of a bolt across the body, in the way wrestlers spread themselves out when hitting the floor to spread the force of the impact over a wider area. And what is effective armour? If it stops the person wearing it from dying( which stormtrooper armour does, they usually get ko'd, or it will take them a while to regroup themselves because they have just been shot) then I think it qualifies. There's a few videos out there about this as I too thought the same as you. Hope this goes someway to help with your question :)
Also in the lore it is impervious to so-called 'slug throwers' (i.e. weapons firing solid projectiles), and it is highly effective against explosions. These two points combined make it an excellent armour against things like grenades which cause damage through an explosion and some solid projectiles. From a movie perspective it serves to dehumanise the Stormtroopers and so allow for them to be killed en masse without having to worry about offending the morality of the viewer.
I think they actually had a specialist for military protective clothing when they made their movies, even with the first(or now 4th) one. Stormtrooper armour is supposed to be rather good with the troopers themselves being the elite rather than the rank and file soldiers of the empire as shown in the movies. You can easily consider them one of the most efficient armies in the lore but even the best unit will pale to the allmighty power of plot convenience.
The armor in the movies IS portrayed correctly. It is designed to dissipate the bolt to the prevent the wearer from dying. Generally speaking, the troopers hit are just knocked out from the impact. This is in comparison to clone armor which was designed to full stop a bolt, but if punctured was pretty much a lethal wound.
Maybe it could be just because they had to make budget cuts, I mean they made 3 Death Stars and a ton of other beastly ships like the Star Destroyer’s. Probably like the example with Full Plate Armor, only ranks like that of Darth Vader probably made their armor at it’s best. :) Or they just poorly strategized, maybe thinking that there ships were completely invincible, but I’m not to sure about this theory, it’d make the Empire very pathetic. :/ Hope that sheds some light. :D
I though we people in the community already make it clear about this. pete hines says it wasnt a slang for anything. its just a random dialogue for guard.
actually that was disproven there is no factual evidence that it is what it means that line and a hundred others were added in to make the game seem more realistic.
When clad in full plate, a person would often opt to either use a mace in order to fight other people in armor, an axe, or heck, even a halberd. Swords were backup weapons, and not intended to be your primary method of engagement in combat. And "dual-wielding" on the battlefield was damn near unheard of, and warriors in plate would instead attempt to use a single weapon much more accurately.
I'm pausing at 5:10 to say this: It's not laziness or "simply" game design, it's game design but including the factors of fun and choice of playstyle. A game that was realistic in 90% of instant death if you get hit by one arrow might be fun in challenge (if done correctly), but that already restricts the number of people that want to play it. Even Dark souls doesn't have instant arrow death and I am determined to play through it one day, but I've played a bit twice before making raspberry noises with my mouth and going back to raging at Halo. Choice of playstyle: Take skyrim for example; you start with leather armour and a not-designed-to-counter-archers shield. Say I want to play the game as a swordsman, but arrows are instant death. Good. Fucking. Luck. That would turn Skyrim's slow progression of "hey maybe I should try stealth archery instead" into the fucking title screen: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: Become a Stealth Archer if You Like to be Alive
I've heard that when steel plate became more common, bigger and heavier swords were brought in to batter and bruise the flesh beneath, and even break bone. Don't know about the truth on that though.
That would be bullshittery. If that was the case then you wouldn't settle for a sword at all because a proper suit of plate would have mail of some kind and below that would be a gambeson which would greatly reduce impact damage from something like a blunt piece of metal. Instead you would settle for a mace/hammer/poleaxe. Take most of the metal used for that bigger sword and now put it into a ball and swing that ball faster than you could a sword because of the center of gravity, and now you have some properly dented metal. People made the Long Sword _because it had a longer handle_ as contrary to the popular belief that a Long Sword meant a Claymore/Great Sword. The reason for this longer handle was to have greater control over your weapon. Shoddycast was right about at least one thing, Knights in full plate seldom needed shields. So now you can have more control over your sword which makes you _much_ more lethal in a duel. The purpose of which for a Long Sword would be that you weren't trying to batter them down, but get close and wrestle them to the ground so you can try and get _something_ through the opponent's mail. Also while I'm here, Dual Wielding... didn't work like that at all. Most of the time it was done with an Arming Sword (also called a Knight's Sword) and a dagger. The sword would block the opponent's attack and then you could slip in and stab the enemy _this was _*_not_*_ done in armored combat_. But rather in unarmored duels where a second blade could come in very handy. You _could_ Dual Wield swords, but it would not be in the classic one sword at each side, but rather it would be done with one sword in a more standard position, and another held above your head(ish) and pointed at the enemy. The idea being that the sword on the bottom blocks the enemy's blade, and then you can sneak in a stab or cut from above where any remaining defenses would have a harder time blocking. One last thing, on the matter of shields. Wooden Shields could actually handle arrows pretty well if they were properly made and reinforced. While it's true that your legs or knees could take an arrow, it was a better deal than your chest.
@@LeviathanTamer31 You're right about most of this except for one thing, the misconception about Longswords, the *Actual* common misconception is that a Longsword is a 1 handed sword
“If you wish to end your opponent rightly, drop thy buckler and take your sword and spear in one arm. Unscrew the pommel of your sword and throw it at him vigorously, then close in with your sword or spear, whichever you prefer.” It’s not exact, but it’s close.
7:55 Mid/Late Renaissance Steel Plate armour could not be damaged by any type of bow. That’s the reason why Crossbows were used. A longbow has a power of around 100+ lbs and was usually spanned around 3-6 inches (based on strength and practice). Crossbows had powers of up to 1200 lbs and could basically be spanned by everyone.
If it's the winch type, probably. Like guns, they need some strength to handle the kickback as well, even if it's far less than a chambered gun powder explosion. If it's the less engineered kind (just a taut bow on a stock), they better have the upper body strength to pull that bowstring as many times as they need to survive, I would guess. Still an arduous effort for the added advantage.
Maces. That is how you would deal with a guy with plate armour. You either bend the metal in his helmet or in his chest (This would make impossible for him to breathe, making him faint in the battlefield. Ta da! If he isn't dead at the end, now you got a hostage and can negotiate for large chunk of gold.
The "End him rightly" joke is getting old really fast. Skall was a dunce for believing in a old German drawing, but the meme has taken a life of it's own.
Do you know how much harder it is to find pictures of fired shells then fully-cased bullets on the internet? If that's your only complaint about the video, Austin should look at this as a compliment.
for all you people that want realism in your video games, if they portrayed weapons realistically you would die from any sword hit that connects in one hit and that would be the end of it. Not exactly fun
That would put a higher risk reward on things and make training and skill much more important. sounds sort of fun as a survival game concept. since enemies would also have the same problems.
No they wouldnt armor exists for a reason and a sword hit while wearing chainmail isnt deadly and i your wearing plate armor your pretty much immune to anything short of a balista or a very large warhammer
Which topics would you like Austin to cover on an episode of SCIENCE!? Let us know. Follow us on Facebook | Facebook.com/ShoddyCast Follow us on Twitter | twitter.com/ShoddyCast Follow Austin | twitter.com/arhourigan Support the show | www.patreon.com/ShoddyCast
Do the science behind heat death of the universe and why we should be praising kyubey for making little girls suffer. If not that, then make a super mutant episode. Not enough love in FO4 for the super mutants.
you forgot to mention crossbows which although light crossbows were not that effective against armour medium to heavy crossbows could effectively pierce armour of the time and required less training, it's major downside was that it was slow to reload, although this could be remedied by having multiple ranks firing in turns.
Bows are just as damaging and effective at the hand of a trained bowman as a gun. The reason we switched to muskets is because bows take significantly more training to use then a stick with a lever on it.
Or as archaeologists would say, if they have thicker bones in their bowing arm (not the actual term, I mean the one holding the bow) they're likely to be longbow men. That's how specialized their roles are.
Even if a arrow penetrates full steel plate (Highly unlikely), the steel plate isn't in direct contact with the skin (Imagine wearing metal plate in a hot, sunny day. You would get burnt in minutes). Knights usually had a thick padding under the plates (To stop arrows and blunt trauma), and possibly a gamblesom over their torso. All this considered, a fully equipped knight would be extremely unlucky to die due to arrow fire (Even before full steel plate, there are reports of crusader Knights with heavy armour assaulting Sarracen castles and fighting even after becoming a pin cushion, due to the fact that the thick padding really stopped the arrows).
Austin. Few problems Here. Bullets mushroom. Most arrows couldn't peirce most plate mail. However, the English long bow was strong enough to peirce most plate. Most later crossbow designs also could get the job done. The issue was the chain mail and the aketon/tabard. This was the key component in stopping arrows. The steel plate was only for stopping swords, and even then, most knights had an axe to punch through plate. Now, you mentioned the battle of Agincourt. You neglected to mention that the English took position on a hill after heavy rain, slowing the French Calvary. If you do want to see a truly impressive display of plate mail being effective, I suggest you look up the the Ottoman expansion into Europe. Specifically the siege of Constantinople.
Deus PoleVult Full metal jacket isn't always armor piercing and it's the standard for war. The cartridges that have a mushrooming bullet are used for hunting. Any other round that doesn't pass cleanly through is banned according to the The Hague Convention from 1899.
I have archery on 73 with my main character. One-Handed swords at 100, every single piece of my armor boosts one handed-swordsmanship, with an enchantment level of 100. My dragon-bone bow or my enhanced dwarven-crossbow still kills faster, even without sneaking.
Beth Same, plus the hack-and-slash movement of one-handed weapons doesn't suit swordsmanship. Clearly, Skyrim is designed with a vampire-hunting paladin in mind. lol
Joseph Klas Huh, interesting. I'm not quite sure where my main character's one-handed is versus his archery, but he alternates between a dragonbone dagger and bow. He is a Bosmer though, so it wouldn't be surprising if his archery is stronger.
Total war did it on a more massive scale tho :) But the ability to be DIRECTLY A SOLDIER IN THIS MASSACRE - yes, that's Mount and Blade and that's why I have 840 hours in Warband xD
It would greatly depend on the type of arrow tip and armor being used, yes some arrow heads could pierce full plate but with out that well Smithed tip it wouldn't. Regardless of draw weight on the bow
I think he meant that the armor is designed to deflect and spread the kinetic energy of the impact in order to minimize damage. it's not like tank armor is actually going to reflect an artillery round and send it flying outwards at a different angle.
AT guns are still counted as Artillery. If the kinetic energy of the shell is too low, it will literally bounce off the armour of a tank. Also, look up the KV-1. One of the first tanks to properly disperse the impact of artillery, making it one of the strongest tanks during WW2.
5:40 Wait, since when did knights dual weild? I was pretty sure that dual wielding was all but made up purely for fantasy, and was never used in a real life battle 'cause it's impractical and overall inferior and dumb.
Late renaissance steel plate armour provided such a good protection from arrows and blows that using a shield was impractical. They rather used a Zweihänder (Two handed longsword) to ensure better precision, distance and force. Thrusting with your two hands is way more precise and deadly.
@@sugoiguy2048 Aye. Usually you use a sword-and-shield or two-hand a single sword. I've never heard of historical, serious battles where anyone walked into battle wielding two swords in their hands.
Referring to 9:25 Samurai practiced shooting people in the eyes from horseback. I'd love to see that girl chasing that guy while wearing full steel plate mail armor on. I'd choose archer in that situation every time, just keep walking backwards, firing arrows while aiming for the face.
A English war bow can kill a fully armoured knight at 200 yards. I do archery and have done for a long time. Archery in games and films are often done to make it look cool or weaker than melee. I would rather have a bow when facing off against a armoured enemy. They would be dead before they got anywhere close to me.
Bullshit. Not even the primary sources say that. Only sensationalized history channel type garbage claims this. Plate armour and riveted mail with padding would stop the vast majority of arrows. It's the horses and the unarmored spots that are the problem.
Its crazy how even though our weapons are becoming increasingly horrifying in their scope and efficiency, they have also become more humane (with the exception of nerve agents/gasses). Imagine getting hit by a barbed arrow coated in human shit. Absolutely horrific. I would rather be turned into a shadow on the sidewalk or get my head blown into the singularity by a 50 cal. Any day of the week. (Im cherry picking a bit here since nuclear fallout caused alot more suffering than the blast itself) also now im sad since im remembering the samurai who was just stunned looking at the aftermath of little boy as he realised how powerless he was. Anyways im RANTING SO MUCH BYE Edit: i tried to find this picture and cant, so i think i may have believed some Photoshop, however in my research saw the "bright as a thousand suns" pictures. Its horrible to think that we could all be dead or in a similar position to those survivors at any moment. We have painted ourselves into that corner so to speak. I wish the first nuke was never created, just as i wish the singularity will never come, but alas human nature drives us to our own demise. Heard an interesting thought that its almost as if humans are on a path to create the singularity because we know it is the single most influential thing we ever could and likely ever will do. The implications of the singularity are a bit wide for me to keep ranting about here, but as an 18 year old "kid" i am sad to know i will likely be wiped off the earth by the inventions of my peers before i hit 50. DOUBLE EDIT: I had never actually researched the singularity i was just able to conceive the topic and its implications the first time i heard it spoken about. However if this comment makes you lose your blissfull ignorance on this subject i am deeply apologetic because i just read its estimated that theres a 50 percent chance it will happen before 2050. 30 more years boys, then we flip the fuckin coin because the people in charge are senile old world fucks who believe in god and human supremacy and so wont even entertain, or worse, cannot comprehend the true dangers of AI. i base that opinion on hearing elon musk say that he openly tried to warm of ai dangers and nobody listened. Ominous shit the way he says it too. No wonder the guys tryna get off the fuckin planet, but with the implications being almost limitless, i mean the singularity could likely "hack" and rewire factories and robots and somehow manage to make a rocket, in fact its much more likely that it would make an infinitely more efficient rocket than a human mind could ever conceive, and come kill elons moon and mars colonies anyways. Like i said really fun stuff and sorry if i have exposed you to these concepts, especially if you are smart, because imo, the better you can understand these implications, the more you realise just how much you cant, and thats the worst part.
Really impressed with this. The only thing I can dock you for is when you mentioned dual-wielding. That was only done in certain types of duels. In a battlefield situation, you'd primarily be using battlefield-specific weapons like spears, lances, greatswords, and halberds. I say primarily because while, yes, one-handed swords were used in battlefields, they were backup weapons.. NOT your go-to.
You never touched on crossbows, however even though they were strong enough to pierce the armor mentioned in this video, and could totally kill someone in that steel armor with a single shot.
I was thinking that and the funny part is he was showing the Witcher where you can only use a crossbow. that's a little weird he should do another video or something on cross bows.
Crossbows are bows too, it's just that they use a mechanical shooting mechanism. At one point in the medieval period the longbow was briefly called the handebow to differentiate it from the bow that's shot crossed i.e. the crossbow.
12:30 Austin, it's pronounced 'ah-jin-cor'. Other than that, loved the video (I studied history, especially ancient/medieval). You could have talked about the arc of an arrow. That's what English longbows used, the force of gravity coming on the descend to essentially pierce armor. Now, the other way to do this was with the crossbow, the Greeks had the 'gastraphetes' or 'belly-shooter, which was a full-person long bow you had to sit down to lock into place to fire. Another awesome bow was the compound recurve bow, famously used by Huns. It was made of sinew that was dried and stretched, wood to some degree, and bone. By bending back on itself, it produced more torq and could effectively pierce even plate mail at close range. It also was short and so could be shot backwards on horseback---Parthian shot, anyone? Look that up, its fun Romans Vs Parthians, poor Crassus... Anyways, if you ever need help or a helpful historian, hit me up. Love your videos man, my wife and I watch them together (she's the scientist of our home). Cheers!
i hate this about gaming. either one will kill you very quickly. if you make it so its realistic, youll die in half a second looking like a fucking pin cusion
+Pennyroyal Tea no. a standard recurve bow (60-100 pounds) will fucking end you. right through your armour and bones. in skyrim youre taking 60 arrows at a time. the dragonborns fucking dead
Well good sir, armor is actually designed so the arrows never lodge themselves in the armor(and you) it's more about the fact that a bunch of sharp pointed pieces of wood flying hella fast makes fighting really fucking hard even if you have armor, especially if you don't have armor. in fact I doubt that the amount of archers you come across in video games at one time(what like 10 at max?) I bet the odds of them getting through some plate mail would be pretty small.
+Preston Downey despite the superior efficiency of a composite bow, even a 100 pound and 160 cm (which is far larger than most.) bow will not be as powerful as an 150 and 185-200 cm Longbow, which especially well made armour has demonstrated to be nearly proof against.
At 5:39 ,you said that knights would often throw away shields and dual-wield ,since they already have armor. Dual-wielding was often didn't happen and for good reason. Why throw away a shield against an army of incoming arrows?
Small correction: the murder stroke generally aims to strike with the guard and not the pommel. There's more weight behind the strike that way, making it more likely to puncture armor and break bone.
I wish you would have mentioned that arrows actually perform better against modern soft armor like kevlar than bullets do. In fact In fact there have been numerous attempts to get the best of both worlds with inventions like flechette shotgun shells that launch several tiny arrows/darts called flechettes. The flechettes have better armor piercing characteristics and are deflected less by brush that pellets, but appear to do less tissue damage on impact. You are correct though that there really are too many variables to determine the effectiveness of bullets vs arrows. Much would depend on the cartridge or arrow type, presence or absence of armor and the type of armor used, the range to target, and the accuracy of the shooter.
The vikings used the fuck out of axes and they kicked everyone's ass, even the Native Americans, and they thought that if you went too far west you'd fall off the earth so it took Leif Erikson some balls to go to America.
I agree with what you said but arrows shot from a bow than found on the ground probably wouldn't be usable again as the would be deformed and not staright have a blunt or broken tip and maybe even missing fletching so that may change the use of bows. Also most guns back than were extremely volatile and likely to back fire or explode and the mixing of gunpowder or black powder was very likely to go wrong
ARROWS- then i get dissapointed because they arent as powerful as to History books made you bileve. Well Agility with Armstrenght and Stealth = Supreme assasin MUAHAHAHA.
I'm sure that someone has already mentioned this but the Mongol longbow arrows (iron and steel tipped since it was after conquest of North China), supposedly punched right through the plated armor worn by Georgian and Russian knights of the 13th century.
Knights in full plate armour did not duel wield that is utter shit. It is already difficult to move in plate armour and duel wielding effectively requires inhuman agility (which is why nobody did it). If you have two swords you don't actually improve on anything, all you have done is spread your blocking and striking power across your hands. This effectively halves your ability to to fight as your blocking and striking power are now halved. Imagine parrying a blow with a sword in just one hand, all you get is a sore as fuck wrist, and probably drop your sword. A) because as I mentioned you have half the strength to hold it and B) because the amount of surface area you have on the swords handle is also halved. A sword and shield combo makes sense because a shield provides better blocking ability than one sword, so you sacrifice striking power for defence. Two swords you sacrifice both, to what end? *_looking cool?_*
Normally I don't hop on internet fights, but you are so very wrong. Moving in plate armor that is properly made is trivial, though it does have some weight. A knight who regularly used armor, though, wouldn't notice the weight much. "Dual wielding" is a stupid damn term, and it really didn't happen often with arming swords or longer weapons outside of the fencing family of combat. However, the use of a short sword or a dagger in one's off-hand wasn't uncommon, especially in the case of grappling. It's more likely that they'd keep the knife on their hip until they had grappled their foe, but those were super deadly in the right spot. You obviously wouldn't do this with a bastard sword, or any larger sword, so you'd be using one hand to hold the weapon anyway. Parrying != taking a blow, parrying is more equivalent to deflecting the force and moving around it (about which, Austin's reasoning is, they wouldn't be concerned because of their armor). This also wouldn't have been very common against other armored individuals, but against those wearing gambesons or chain, common footsoldiers. I'm not saying it happened often, or was even common, but it did happen.
I train in escrima baton fighting. Most people prefer to use one baton but I use two. And I kick ass. I can block with both at once in an x shape, and I can parry with one and strike with the other. It is more difficult, but highly rewarding to use two weapons as opposed to just one. There are also special attacks I can perform with two weapons, that are uncounterable with just one weapon. My friend has trained in kendo for the same amount of time I've trained in escrima and every time we spar I am able to lock his weapon in place and beat him with my offhand baton
+christopher corriveau buddy what you just provided is called "anicdodal" evidence which means utter shit just because you do it doesn't mean it was effective.
Does it really have to do with "inhuman agility"? Isn't it more about strength of blows when fighting armored opponents? You see, when you attack, it's not just something your arm does, but instead you strike with most of your body. You pull back and then move forward with the strike. You rotate your body a bit on the strike to give it that extra oomph as well. This ends up moving one side of your body forward to improve the force of the strike, however, the other side pulls back. As a result, if you are dual wielding then your off-hand would have massively diminished striking power, essentially negating the usefulness of a 2nd weapon. In a duel or when fencing you tend to be unarmored or don't fight to the death. What this means is that the strength you can put behind a blow isn't nearly as important because an unarmored person is much easier to kill meaning that your main-hand does not have to have nearly as much power behind strikes.
Some people dual-wielded historically, but not European knights, no. What's more, with the exception of certain schools of fencing, all the examples I know of are from Eastern martial arts.
Caius Filimon He is an entertainment youtuber so it's normal for him to act childish. His type of childish is funny to me, for me the obnoxious type would be for e.g. Nicktron .
Small correction on being able to fire arrows back oftentimes X army would use removable or loose Knox that would fall off or stay attached to the bow therefore the arrows could not seem to be picked up and shot back
If you're talking about shortswords, arming swords, broadswords and the like then swords should be considered more dangerous as you can use a shield to minimise the area to target. Shooting a moving target with a bowman isn't too much of a threat as long as they don't catch you off-guard. A huge group of archers is terrifying because it's like a blanket of death.
On the terminal ballistics (when the bullet hits something) part it is dependent on the design of the bullet, the original AK-47 and SKS ammo was called M43 and its terminal ballistics were not very good against humans and mostly punched a hole through you, were as the Yugoslavian designed M67 ammunition for the AK and SKS was much better as it did something much similar to the clear ballistics gelatin test shown at 3:00. Pistol cartridges also don't cause that much hydro static shock, at 3:00 that is a rifle. Also check out Kingdom Come Deliverance (RPG) they are trying to have realistic medieval combat.
Yeah, Agincourt if I'm not mistaken was pretty much the death knell for full plate armor as the English longbow was so powerful and had no problem piercing armor. Up until that time armored knights had ruled the battlefield, but afterwards they saw a swift decline in use. Calvary became lighter and faster.
bows are pretty awesome. you mentioned English war bows wedding into the joints in armour, but I have also heard that sometimes they were powerful enough to punch through a knight's armored leg and a good deal through his horse's body. It would probably have to hit at ninety degrees so that it didn't deflect off. have you heard similar things?
"Tiny-as-fuck ball." LMAO. My mom found a Civil War era miniball. The sucker was .50 caliber, and weighed an ounce. There were so many amputations during the Civil War because getting a limb struck by a miniball completely shattered the bones.
actually, there were different types of arrows - the main ones were the hunting arrow(The one that can't be pulled out), the long stubbed(It's head was long and thin, designed to pop open mail armor) and short stubbed(designed to peirce plated armor)
I remember reading something a while back about the extra force imparted by an arrow due to it's length, I can't remember all the details but it was something more than mass x area of impact, loosely an arrow and bullet of the same momentum and impact area you get more force out of an arrow
Weren't falchions designed to cleave intto plate armor? I have one and while i can't say I've cut up a knight with it, i HAVE hacked the tailgate and passenger door off a 64 dodge power wagon,and that was when i was 14, so....
I've personally hacked the tailgate off a '64 dodge pickup truck with a falchion, also managed to mangle the door hinge,the hood, and several stabs that got a good 3 to 4 inchs of blade into body panels, so am i super strong then?
how can the small injury (in comparison to a sword impact injury) sustained from an arrow launched into the body, be worse than a gaping wound left by a sword blade, i know it can be stitched up but if you're arrow wound is going to get infected then so is your sword wound, regardless of dressing or treatments
I'd be willing to bet there's a "roguelike" out there with an armor and ranged combat system complicated enough to cover all the subtle issues you mentioned. Heck, Dwarf Fortress's combat and damage system covers at least a bit of the layering and vulnerability issues with protective equipment.
Forgetting crossbows in the evolution of ranged infantry weaponry made me sad. :(
crossbows are not evolution their are side branch from bows
Mr.Vojtik You're joking, right? They were a huge improvement over bows in that they allowed untrained infantry to fire projectiles that could fairly easily pierce plate mail. They are the exact middle ground between bows and simple muskets.
Except you forget that a crossbow was hard to reload, while a bow in the hands of someone skilled enough to use could fire 6 shots a minute, while a crossbow would only be 1 per minute
The truth is slightly more complicated. Crossbows were extremely useful because they allowed a mob of untrained peasants with a month of drilling to go tow to tow with master archers, and win assuming equal amounts of money going into both armies (this includes the cost of raising and training master archers). They could also be quickly rallied as levies, and training was far less strenuous allowing effective usage by a militia.
The problem was that the Warrior Elite, usually knights in Western Europe, saw this as a direct threat to their power. They had centuries to gain influence over their lords by leveraging their use in the military, but these new weapons threatened the "natural order". So they were deliberately under-used, sometimes only being used as a act of desperation, so the Warrior elite could maintain their power. The rise of centralized realms in the early renaissance could have saw a switch to crossbowmen as a primary weapon of war, but the rise of practical fire-arms like the arquebus saw the large scale usage of their replacements instead.
thorff1 To compare bows and crossbows is to compare assault rifles and sniper rifle. multiple weak shots X one strong.
You can't say that one is better, or if you dare take unloaded crossbow and I will take unloaded bow, let's see who'll win then.
To deafeat heavily armored foe you must unscrew the pommel and throw it at him to end him rightly. Common knowlegde.
Kappa Kappa I was hoping for a Skallagrim reference
Kappa Kappa I just carry a bag of pommels around
kkkkk
Dalton, Dalton, Dalton. It is not the pommel itself that carries the power. It is the *_sword_* having its *_pommel_* be *_unscrewed_* and then thrown, that gives the pommel its power. Without all 3 of those components together, they are all lumps of metal in varying conditions.
Olusegun Obasanjo Everyone commented about it, but I'm not getting that reference
As someone who is a history buff, has a bachelors degree in history, wrote my longest college paper (20 pages) on the reasons for the transition between longbow and firearm, and is incredibly interested in the use of historical weaponry and therefore has done a bunch of research, I give you _Full_ marks for research.
The only thing I heard which could be contested as incorrect on the subject of weapons and combat is that you didn't clarify that longbow arrows cannot pass completely through well made steel plate and are very unlikely to penetrate subsequent layers of armor and padding regardless even if they wedge themselves in, but I assume that was from a lack of time; same with an explanation of dual wielding.
The only real problem is the medical aspect; it was certainly iffier and you certainly could die from a random cut, but it wasn't like you usually would. Hell, they had the treatment of slashes and cuts pretty much down (just without modern antibiotics), but you simply can't treat arrows or stab wounds the same way. That and their immune systems were heartier.
Thus I can understand that you'd think that after reading the sources you did.
All is forgiven.
The guy is an idiot. He does not know shit! Not about Longbows, and not about Medieval history. Also, he really overestimated Hydrostatic Shock. Believe it or not, HS is definitely not one of the main contributors of death for ballistic trauma.
***** I wouldn't exactly call it extensive, but no I don't. And I love swords, think they'd be usable today even. The big difference is that swords were usually not a primary weapon in actual combat (exceptions exist, but the rule is pretty reliable). They are the quintessential sidearm, a secondary weapon; the bow is a primary weapon. It's perhaps an uneven comparison, but that's the reality of things which is constantly portrayed wrongly.
And hell, the balance is always towards ranged weapons just because you can use them without melee weapons being used on you.
+farmerboy916 Swords were also expensive as hell. Certain troops and certain swords were primary weapons though. No army, that I know of, had enough resources to equip their entire army with swords.
+farmerboy916 The Romans did equip many troops with a gladius, but that is not a primary weapon.
The best way to end armored enemies rightly is pommel throw.
So att the end the sword always wins :D
+qwerty qwerty No, swords are oddly specific barely used weapons in medeveal combat, the most used weapons were axes since peasants already owned the, bows and spears because hunters had them. Swords were either highly elite units or rich duelers in the late medeveal to early renassiance period.
+TheTexasRangerNamedDeath but do axes have throwable pommels?
You beat me to it
pommel throw OP pls nerf
And what if I use my swords as arrows?
Oh shit man, you'd fucking destroy all enemies
I use my arrows as swords
I use my sword as a bow
i use sword ass arrows.
+Shruk Pls he said sword as a arrow......
Dear Austin......wtf is wrong with Storm Trooper Armor?
What i mean by that is, what exactly is it good for? Armor in anny age, should be there to protect you from the harms of weapons used by your enemys. Like in this Video the heavy armor was designed to protect against swords and arrows, shouldn´t the storm trooper armor be designed to protect against blaster shoots? but they don´t....in fact they wont evan protect them from freaking ewoks wielding stone spears. a simple leather jacket would do a better job. so why do stormtroopers bother wearing that poor excuse for an armor anyways?
sincearly, Alexandra
Stormtrooper armour is incredibly effective against blaster bolts. It's designed to spread the impact of a bolt across the body, in the way wrestlers spread themselves out when hitting the floor to spread the force of the impact over a wider area. And what is effective armour? If it stops the person wearing it from dying( which stormtrooper armour does, they usually get ko'd, or it will take them a while to regroup themselves because they have just been shot) then I think it qualifies. There's a few videos out there about this as I too thought the same as you. Hope this goes someway to help with your question :)
Also in the lore it is impervious to so-called 'slug throwers' (i.e. weapons firing solid projectiles), and it is highly effective against explosions. These two points combined make it an excellent armour against things like grenades which cause damage through an explosion and some solid projectiles.
From a movie perspective it serves to dehumanise the Stormtroopers and so allow for them to be killed en masse without having to worry about offending the morality of the viewer.
I think they actually had a specialist for military protective clothing when they made their movies, even with the first(or now 4th) one. Stormtrooper armour is supposed to be rather good with the troopers themselves being the elite rather than the rank and file soldiers of the empire as shown in the movies.
You can easily consider them one of the most efficient armies in the lore but even the best unit will pale to the allmighty power of plot convenience.
The armor in the movies IS portrayed correctly. It is designed to dissipate the bolt to the prevent the wearer from dying. Generally speaking, the troopers hit are just knocked out from the impact. This is in comparison to clone armor which was designed to full stop a bolt, but if punctured was pretty much a lethal wound.
Maybe it could be just because they had to make budget cuts, I mean they made 3 Death Stars and a ton of other beastly ships like the Star Destroyer’s. Probably like the example with Full Plate Armor, only ranks like that of Darth Vader probably made their armor at it’s best. :)
Or they just poorly strategized, maybe thinking that there ships were completely invincible, but I’m not to sure about this theory, it’d make the Empire very pathetic. :/
Hope that sheds some light. :D
"Took an arrow to the knee" was slang for getting married. :P
Wrong, that's a myth.
+Emily Grün no it isn't...
How about we let Austin research this and put it to rest?
I though we people in the community already make it clear about this. pete hines says it wasnt a slang for anything.
its just a random dialogue for guard.
actually that was disproven there is no factual evidence that it is what it means that line and a hundred others were added in to make the game seem more realistic.
When clad in full plate, a person would often opt to either use a mace in order to fight other people in armor, an axe, or heck, even a halberd. Swords were backup weapons, and not intended to be your primary method of engagement in combat. And "dual-wielding" on the battlefield was damn near unheard of, and warriors in plate would instead attempt to use a single weapon much more accurately.
Another popular backup weapon of knights in addition to those above was a warhammer. Those are beautifully functional. Cheers!
I'm pausing at 5:10 to say this:
It's not laziness or "simply" game design, it's game design but including the factors of fun and choice of playstyle.
A game that was realistic in 90% of instant death if you get hit by one arrow might be fun in challenge (if done correctly), but that already restricts the number of people that want to play it. Even Dark souls doesn't have instant arrow death and I am determined to play through it one day, but I've played a bit twice before making raspberry noises with my mouth and going back to raging at Halo.
Choice of playstyle:
Take skyrim for example; you start with leather armour and a not-designed-to-counter-archers shield. Say I want to play the game as a swordsman, but arrows are instant death. Good. Fucking. Luck. That would turn Skyrim's slow progression of "hey maybe I should try stealth archery instead" into the fucking title screen:
The Elder Scrolls V:
Skyrim:
Become a Stealth Archer if You Like to be Alive
I've heard that when steel plate became more common, bigger and heavier swords were brought in to batter and bruise the flesh beneath, and even break bone. Don't know about the truth on that though.
That would be bullshittery. If that was the case then you wouldn't settle for a sword at all because a proper suit of plate would have mail of some kind and below that would be a gambeson which would greatly reduce impact damage from something like a blunt piece of metal. Instead you would settle for a mace/hammer/poleaxe.
Take most of the metal used for that bigger sword and now put it into a ball and swing that ball faster than you could a sword because of the center of gravity, and now you have some properly dented metal. People made the Long Sword _because it had a longer handle_ as contrary to the popular belief that a Long Sword meant a Claymore/Great Sword.
The reason for this longer handle was to have greater control over your weapon. Shoddycast was right about at least one thing, Knights in full plate seldom needed shields. So now you can have more control over your sword which makes you _much_ more lethal in a duel. The purpose of which for a Long Sword would be that you weren't trying to batter them down, but get close and wrestle them to the ground so you can try and get _something_ through the opponent's mail.
Also while I'm here, Dual Wielding... didn't work like that at all. Most of the time it was done with an Arming Sword (also called a Knight's Sword) and a dagger. The sword would block the opponent's attack and then you could slip in and stab the enemy _this was _*_not_*_ done in armored combat_. But rather in unarmored duels where a second blade could come in very handy.
You _could_ Dual Wield swords, but it would not be in the classic one sword at each side, but rather it would be done with one sword in a more standard position, and another held above your head(ish) and pointed at the enemy. The idea being that the sword on the bottom blocks the enemy's blade, and then you can sneak in a stab or cut from above where any remaining defenses would have a harder time blocking.
One last thing, on the matter of shields. Wooden Shields could actually handle arrows pretty well if they were properly made and reinforced. While it's true that your legs or knees could take an arrow, it was a better deal than your chest.
@@LeviathanTamer31 You're right about most of this except for one thing, the misconception about Longswords, the *Actual* common misconception is that a Longsword is a 1 handed sword
Magic obviously
lol
Ok
Why use a sword when you can vaporize a man with the might of your mind
DUH, was totally gonna say the same thing.
+Jake Hawkfield Exactly
7:10 But did they end them rightly?
No. They did not unfortunately.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I was just going to comment this 😂
Panchozilla too bad only less than 40 people get this ;_;
+Mr. Hankey The Xmas Poo #TeamHeavy skall
Pfft. A real nord uses their fists!
It Mr. Bean truth!
Why use arrows when your sword has a pommel that can end your enemies rightly?
aaaaaaaaand...there we go lol was looking for this.
God bless you. The pommel is the only true way to end your foes
The few who get it.
wasn't expecting to see that here skal what have you done lol
quadruple comment, achievement unlocked
use your pommel guys, end him rightly
only true way to end him rightly.
Only them pommels...
That's why bullets are so effective. They're miniature pommels.
And what about pommel tip arrows?
Didn't the church ban those for being too lethal?
unscrew the pommel and end him rightly!
“If you wish to end your opponent rightly, drop thy buckler and take your sword and spear in one arm. Unscrew the pommel of your sword and throw it at him vigorously, then close in with your sword or spear, whichever you prefer.”
It’s not exact, but it’s close.
Is that skallagrim I hear there?
Two instance of the same joke 3 comments apart, how about you guys come up with something original for once...?
God damnit
“Arrows are treated as splinters”
**Laughs in Stealth Archer**
Crossbow with a bayonet. Simple, concise.
dakotagau I love it
field marshal arnim kagori of the 88th siege army approves.
the crossbow *is* the bayonet
Slow down there, Anderson...
7:55 Mid/Late Renaissance Steel Plate armour could not be damaged by any type of bow. That’s the reason why Crossbows were used. A longbow has a power of around 100+ lbs and was usually spanned around 3-6 inches (based on strength and practice). Crossbows had powers of up to 1200 lbs and could basically be spanned by everyone.
If it's the winch type, probably. Like guns, they need some strength to handle the kickback as well, even if it's far less than a chambered gun powder explosion.
If it's the less engineered kind (just a taut bow on a stock), they better have the upper body strength to pull that bowstring as many times as they need to survive, I would guess.
Still an arduous effort for the added advantage.
Maces. That is how you would deal with a guy with plate armour. You either bend the metal in his helmet or in his chest (This would make impossible for him to breathe, making him faint in the battlefield. Ta da! If he isn't dead at the end, now you got a hostage and can negotiate for large chunk of gold.
But why that when you can end him rightly?
That's why you carry a spare pommel with you at all times
The "End him rightly" joke is getting old really fast. Skall was a dunce for believing in a old German drawing, but the meme has taken a life of it's own.
2:53 The case doesn't fly with the bullet... :(
Do you know how much harder it is to find pictures of fired shells then fully-cased bullets on the internet?
If that's your only complaint about the video, Austin should look at this as a compliment.
Its not hard, just type in google "Bullet" and you got pictures of it.
+Soris
Or, you know, just cut out the bullet with photoshop or even paint and save it... Easy as pie.
Here at Shoddycast we fire the whole bullet! That's 60% more bullet per bullet!
Or even just bullet without casing
for all you people that want realism in your video games, if they portrayed weapons realistically you would die from any sword hit that connects in one hit and that would be the end of it. Not exactly fun
That would put a higher risk reward on things and make training and skill much more important. sounds sort of fun as a survival game concept. since enemies would also have the same problems.
Would be cool if the had a game like that
+Daniel Roy yep
It's called dark souls new game +
No they wouldnt armor exists for a reason and a sword hit while wearing chainmail isnt deadly and i your wearing plate armor your pretty much immune to anything short of a balista or a very large warhammer
1:35 The exception! Bow down to them!
Oh mighty conquers of snow time Russia, we praise you and your mighty empire!
...the Mongols.
Arrows in video games are practically nerfed... except when you are.... wait for it...
THE MONGOLS
*Mongoltage*
Wait for it... the mongels!
I can't believe how well the Mongols did, they even pushed into Western Europe (like Western Poland and stuff like that).
Which topics would you like Austin to cover on an episode of SCIENCE!? Let us know.
Follow us on Facebook | Facebook.com/ShoddyCast
Follow us on Twitter | twitter.com/ShoddyCast
Follow Austin | twitter.com/arhourigan
Support the show | www.patreon.com/ShoddyCast
Do the science behind heat death of the universe and why we should be praising kyubey for making little girls suffer.
If not that, then make a super mutant episode. Not enough love in FO4 for the super mutants.
please do the science behind........DRAGONS! and how they breath fire fly etc.
you forgot to mention crossbows which although light crossbows were not that effective against armour medium to heavy crossbows could effectively pierce armour of the time and required less training, it's major downside was that it was slow to reload, although this could be remedied by having multiple ranks firing in turns.
The science behind the gravity on Nirn, because it's smaller than Earth yet has the same gravity.
Do a video on the real life implications of magic like what is used in RPGs.
Bows are just as damaging and effective at the hand of a trained bowman as a gun. The reason we switched to muskets is because bows take significantly more training to use then a stick with a lever on it.
Or as archaeologists would say, if they have thicker bones in their bowing arm (not the actual term, I mean the one holding the bow) they're likely to be longbow men. That's how specialized their roles are.
End them Rightly
your right why were pommels not covered in this video
+chris lopez Conspiracy!
pommel too powerful, thats cheating
Throw that fucking pommel
+Isaac Chan pommel op please nerd
Even if a arrow penetrates full steel plate (Highly unlikely), the steel plate isn't in direct contact with the skin (Imagine wearing metal plate in a hot, sunny day. You would get burnt in minutes). Knights usually had a thick padding under the plates (To stop arrows and blunt trauma), and possibly a gamblesom over their torso. All this considered, a fully equipped knight would be extremely unlucky to die due to arrow fire (Even before full steel plate, there are reports of crusader Knights with heavy armour assaulting Sarracen castles and fighting even after becoming a pin cushion, due to the fact that the thick padding really stopped the arrows).
saracens had like 20 kilo bows so ye
fidur2 very handy weapons
Actually, the guards are referring to being married. "An arrow in the knee" was a slang phrase back then for being married to someone.
Austin. Few problems Here. Bullets mushroom. Most arrows couldn't peirce most plate mail. However, the English long bow was strong enough to peirce most plate. Most later crossbow designs also could get the job done. The issue was the chain mail and the aketon/tabard. This was the key component in stopping arrows. The steel plate was only for stopping swords, and even then, most knights had an axe to punch through plate. Now, you mentioned the battle of Agincourt. You neglected to mention that the English took position on a hill after heavy rain, slowing the French Calvary. If you do want to see a truly impressive display of plate mail being effective, I suggest you look up the the Ottoman expansion into Europe. Specifically the siege of Constantinople.
look it up, nothing swung by hand can pierce plate mail. there are a ton of channels proving this.
+douglasdalini but that's wrong.
Depends on what bullet. Full metal jacketed cartridges pass through. The reason why is because of how much of the lead core is exposed on the tip.
+Just a dude armor piercing is fairly recent though
Deus PoleVult Full metal jacket isn't always armor piercing and it's the standard for war. The cartridges that have a mushrooming bullet are used for hunting. Any other round that doesn't pass cleanly through is banned according to the The Hague Convention from 1899.
how do the radiation guns in fallout work ?
I like this question! :D
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
Joshua Richardson Heh, thanks for reminding me of that, interesting... would love to see a video on this still
Timo Bensch we must know
Microwave radiation. It's basically a battery attached to a radar dish and capacitors stuck on the top to reload.
7:00 lol XD that dudes face on the left, all I can think is him saying. "well played sir. You have bested me."
Only that bows and arrows are OP as fuck in Skyrim, If played properly.
Crossbows and two handed maces are best just because of the thunk and crunch noises, everything else doesn't matter...
Skyrim: Where "mastering archery" just means that you've finally reached the point where a bow and arrow works the way it ought to.
I have archery on 73 with my main character. One-Handed swords at 100, every single piece of my armor boosts one handed-swordsmanship, with an enchantment level of 100. My dragon-bone bow or my enhanced dwarven-crossbow still kills faster, even without sneaking.
Beth Same, plus the hack-and-slash movement of one-handed weapons doesn't suit swordsmanship. Clearly, Skyrim is designed with a vampire-hunting paladin in mind. lol
Joseph Klas Huh, interesting. I'm not quite sure where my main character's one-handed is versus his archery, but he alternates between a dragonbone dagger and bow. He is a Bosmer though, so it wouldn't be surprising if his archery is stronger.
Dual wielding was not a thing .
There were some uses of parrying daggers or swords but that is not relay dual wielding.
Also half-swording
I present. Nordic Raiders. With two axes.
@@crazydruid3337 yes, berserkers.
Mount & Blade Warband got most of it right.
Total war did it on a more massive scale tho :) But the ability to be DIRECTLY A SOLDIER IN THIS MASSACRE - yes, that's Mount and Blade and that's why I have 840 hours in Warband xD
scholagladiatoria is a very good channel focusing on HEMA (historacal european martial arts)
Lindybeige is good too, but dont trust him on more modern stuff. (Spandou...)
As is skalagrim and shadversity
+Slayer Jesse (Spandau*)
And while we're at it with recommending Hema youtubers: Skallagrim
+Slayer Jesse God fucking damnit
HEMA is also a sausage, clothes and school stuff store in the Netherlands
Dual wielding? lol... you mean sword and dagger not like skyrim dual weilding
heres a compensation: shoot sword pomels whit a bow
Aatu Seppä aye, that'd end them rightly
Zane Mortensen it's all about ending them rightly
Hello random person scrolling down. Hows your day
Good. And yours?
It's goin alright. Lol
Fine, fine...
Good. *How's yours?
Yes
I cringe whenever you blindly keep shooting at a zarya shield, you're just helping your enemy!
nerd
Zarya is my best character, i love people like Austin
Kevin O'Neal you realize that this isn't the 90s right? that isn't an insult.
+LoLhamz23 Ghnerd!
I mean, you cared enough to reply, so he must of done something right.
It would greatly depend on the type of arrow tip and armor being used, yes some arrow heads could pierce full plate but with out that well Smithed tip it wouldn't. Regardless of draw weight on the bow
7:45 It's not possible for a tank to deflect a artillery shot.
I think he meant that the armor is designed to deflect and spread the kinetic energy of the impact in order to minimize damage. it's not like tank armor is actually going to reflect an artillery round and send it flying outwards at a different angle.
every gun which caliber is larger than 23mm is considered artillery
love your profile pic, fits so well.
AT guns are still counted as Artillery. If the kinetic energy of the shell is too low, it will literally bounce off the armour of a tank.
Also, look up the KV-1. One of the first tanks to properly disperse the impact of artillery, making it one of the strongest tanks during WW2.
+Grish Nakah Didn't the T-34 also have the same technique for armor plating?
5:40 Wait, since when did knights dual weild? I was pretty sure that dual wielding was all but made up purely for fantasy, and was never used in a real life battle 'cause it's impractical and overall inferior and dumb.
Late renaissance steel plate armour provided such a good protection from arrows and blows that using a shield was impractical. They rather used a Zweihänder (Two handed longsword) to ensure better precision, distance and force. Thrusting with your two hands is way more precise and deadly.
@@sugoiguy2048 Aye. Usually you use a sword-and-shield or two-hand a single sword. I've never heard of historical, serious battles where anyone walked into battle wielding two swords in their hands.
@@finn_underwood may i present to you... viking berserkers dual wielding axes?
Referring to 9:25
Samurai practiced shooting people in the eyes from horseback. I'd love to see that girl chasing that guy while wearing full steel plate mail armor on. I'd choose archer in that situation every time, just keep walking backwards, firing arrows while aiming for the face.
the holding the sword by the blade is called half swording (in English I think)
Indeed , it was used to straighten and add more rigidity to the blade for thrusting
A English war bow can kill a fully armoured knight at 200 yards. I do archery and have done for a long time. Archery in games and films are often done to make it look cool or weaker than melee. I would rather have a bow when facing off against a armoured enemy. They would be dead before they got anywhere close to me.
Bullshit. Not even the primary sources say that. Only sensationalized history channel type garbage claims this.
Plate armour and riveted mail with padding would stop the vast majority of arrows. It's the horses and the unarmored spots that are the problem.
+migkillerphantom battle of Agincourt mate
then how do 20mm cannons exist?
Depends on armor/bow quality and the angle/location you're hit. If we're talking the earlier plates and a hit square on the chest...good luck.
+It's Hex Dr. Tobias Capwell, who is the leading expert on Agincourt, says that the French knights were protected from arrows.
Its crazy how even though our weapons are becoming increasingly horrifying in their scope and efficiency, they have also become more humane (with the exception of nerve agents/gasses). Imagine getting hit by a barbed arrow coated in human shit. Absolutely horrific. I would rather be turned into a shadow on the sidewalk or get my head blown into the singularity by a 50 cal. Any day of the week. (Im cherry picking a bit here since nuclear fallout caused alot more suffering than the blast itself) also now im sad since im remembering the samurai who was just stunned looking at the aftermath of little boy as he realised how powerless he was. Anyways im RANTING SO MUCH BYE
Edit: i tried to find this picture and cant, so i think i may have believed some Photoshop, however in my research saw the "bright as a thousand suns" pictures. Its horrible to think that we could all be dead or in a similar position to those survivors at any moment. We have painted ourselves into that corner so to speak. I wish the first nuke was never created, just as i wish the singularity will never come, but alas human nature drives us to our own demise. Heard an interesting thought that its almost as if humans are on a path to create the singularity because we know it is the single most influential thing we ever could and likely ever will do. The implications of the singularity are a bit wide for me to keep ranting about here, but as an 18 year old "kid" i am sad to know i will likely be wiped off the earth by the inventions of my peers before i hit 50.
DOUBLE EDIT: I had never actually researched the singularity i was just able to conceive the topic and its implications the first time i heard it spoken about. However if this comment makes you lose your blissfull ignorance on this subject i am deeply apologetic because i just read its estimated that theres a 50 percent chance it will happen before 2050. 30 more years boys, then we flip the fuckin coin because the people in charge are senile old world fucks who believe in god and human supremacy and so wont even entertain, or worse, cannot comprehend the true dangers of AI. i base that opinion on hearing elon musk say that he openly tried to warm of ai dangers and nobody listened. Ominous shit the way he says it too. No wonder the guys tryna get off the fuckin planet, but with the implications being almost limitless, i mean the singularity could likely "hack" and rewire factories and robots and somehow manage to make a rocket, in fact its much more likely that it would make an infinitely more efficient rocket than a human mind could ever conceive, and come kill elons moon and mars colonies anyways. Like i said really fun stuff and sorry if i have exposed you to these concepts, especially if you are smart, because imo, the better you can understand these implications, the more you realise just how much you cant, and thats the worst part.
I salute you for writing this long of a comment on a 4 year old video :)
can i throw pommel in to the Knight's face and finnish him rightly?
I was waiting for this reference!
hails skallagrim repeatedly
Stop beating a dead horse, please...
I always do love your videos Austin, this one is amazingly fun as per usual. :)
Really impressed with this. The only thing I can dock you for is when you mentioned dual-wielding. That was only done in certain types of duels. In a battlefield situation, you'd primarily be using battlefield-specific weapons like spears, lances, greatswords, and halberds. I say primarily because while, yes, one-handed swords were used in battlefields, they were backup weapons.. NOT your go-to.
the right way to take out an heavily armored opponent is crush them with a Mk II Challenger
Throw a pommel at him
End him rightly!
i find that a Bradly APC usually does the trick
Swing a katana around like a lunatic making weird waaaah noises and they will just die on the spot.
Unscrew your pommel and end them rightly.
in mount and blade
you learn to fear arrows more then swords
1:31 AHHHHH, it is the Mongols! John Green is going to love this
You never touched on crossbows, however even though they were strong enough to pierce the armor mentioned in this video, and could totally kill someone in that steel armor with a single shot.
I was thinking that and the funny part is he was showing the Witcher where you can only use a crossbow. that's a little weird he should do another video or something on cross bows.
Yeah, that is a little weird, and he totally should do another video about crossbows LOL
Crossbows are bows too, it's just that they use a mechanical shooting mechanism. At one point in the medieval period the longbow was briefly called the handebow to differentiate it from the bow that's shot crossed i.e. the crossbow.
I agree that crossbows are bows too, but they were still much stronger and were used in medieval times to kill or injure targets with full armor.
The videos title specifically mentions bows. He was never going to talk about them because theyre no where near as prolific.
>uses dark sword
enough said about you
It has been nerf.
+reniorjd you have been good grammar...
Parry
Rescpected hes gramner or fes teh concesecuence
what about pommels ... ?
12:30 Austin, it's pronounced 'ah-jin-cor'. Other than that, loved the video (I studied history, especially ancient/medieval). You could have talked about the arc of an arrow. That's what English longbows used, the force of gravity coming on the descend to essentially pierce armor. Now, the other way to do this was with the crossbow, the Greeks had the 'gastraphetes' or 'belly-shooter, which was a full-person long bow you had to sit down to lock into place to fire. Another awesome bow was the compound recurve bow, famously used by Huns. It was made of sinew that was dried and stretched, wood to some degree, and bone. By bending back on itself, it produced more torq and could effectively pierce even plate mail at close range. It also was short and so could be shot backwards on horseback---Parthian shot, anyone? Look that up, its fun Romans Vs Parthians, poor Crassus... Anyways, if you ever need help or a helpful historian, hit me up. Love your videos man, my wife and I watch them together (she's the scientist of our home). Cheers!
As a fencer and archer I love this video
i hate this about gaming. either one will kill you very quickly. if you make it so its realistic, youll die in half a second looking like a fucking pin cusion
+Pennyroyal Tea no. a standard recurve bow (60-100 pounds) will fucking end you. right through your armour and bones. in skyrim youre taking 60 arrows at a time. the dragonborns fucking dead
+Pennyroyal Tea because a set of steel armour blocks a steel sword.
Well good sir, armor is actually designed so the arrows never lodge themselves in the armor(and you) it's more about the fact that a bunch of sharp pointed pieces of wood flying hella fast makes fighting really fucking hard even if you have armor, especially if you don't have armor. in fact I doubt that the amount of archers you come across in video games at one time(what like 10 at max?) I bet the odds of them getting through some plate mail would be pretty small.
+Preston Downey despite the superior efficiency of a composite bow, even a 100 pound and 160 cm (which is far larger than most.) bow will not be as powerful as an 150 and 185-200 cm Longbow, which especially well made armour has demonstrated to be nearly proof against.
At 5:39 ,you said that knights would often throw away shields and dual-wield ,since they already have armor. Dual-wielding was often didn't happen and for good reason. Why throw away a shield against an army of incoming arrows?
Strongest Skyrim build is with bows.
NOOOOOO ONE DUALWIELDED
Small correction: the murder stroke generally aims to strike with the guard and not the pommel. There's more weight behind the strike that way, making it more likely to puncture armor and break bone.
Dual wielding is useless better use a shield or a two-handet sword
Kissanime steams as many anime as crunchy roll and its ad free with no pay and some are dubbed (spoken in English)
There is also kisscartoon.me for a whole bunch of cartoons if you think of it it's there
+Zach Korman Shhh
keep this quite, shhhh
+Zach Korman SILENCE Y FOOL
Well, I mean, if you don't want to support the creators of your entertainment, sure. Use the Pirates.
I wish you would have mentioned that arrows actually perform better against modern soft armor like kevlar than bullets do. In fact In fact there have been numerous attempts to get the best of both worlds with inventions like flechette shotgun shells that launch several tiny arrows/darts called flechettes. The flechettes have better armor piercing characteristics and are deflected less by brush that pellets, but appear to do less tissue damage on impact.
You are correct though that there really are too many variables to determine the effectiveness of bullets vs arrows. Much would depend on the cartridge or arrow type, presence or absence of armor and the type of armor used, the range to target, and the accuracy of the shooter.
Axes > everything else
The vikings used the fuck out of axes and they kicked everyone's ass, even the Native Americans, and they thought that if you went too far west you'd fall off the earth so it took Leif Erikson some balls to go to America.
HINGDER DINGDER DINGDER.
TANK BEATS EVERYTHING!
Rusty Shackleford or hammers
Pommel > everything else
Original Sailor Moon > Crystal
preach
fuck anime.
Why don't you watch My little pony as well?
*goes off to watch berzerk*
Mike Merchant
The new Berserk's animation is shit.
***** The old berzerk is gold.
I agree with what you said but arrows shot from a bow than found on the ground probably wouldn't be usable again as the would be deformed and not staright have a blunt or broken tip and maybe even missing fletching so that may change the use of bows.
Also most guns back than were extremely volatile and likely to back fire or explode and the mixing of gunpowder or black powder was very likely to go wrong
If you want a great ass show watch Vikings in Hulu.
on*
Ohyes
Liam Quinn YES!!
Erm, k....?
I used to watch that but after a while I gave up (like after the first few episodes)
ARROWS- then i get dissapointed because they arent as powerful as to History books made you bileve. Well Agility with Armstrenght and Stealth = Supreme assasin MUAHAHAHA.
I'm sure that someone has already mentioned this but the Mongol longbow arrows (iron and steel tipped since it was after conquest of North China), supposedly punched right through the plated armor worn by Georgian and Russian knights of the 13th century.
Knights in full plate armour did not duel wield that is utter shit. It is already difficult to move in plate armour and duel wielding effectively requires inhuman agility (which is why nobody did it). If you have two swords you don't actually improve on anything, all you have done is spread your blocking and striking power across your hands. This effectively halves your ability to to fight as your blocking and striking power are now halved. Imagine parrying a blow with a sword in just one hand, all you get is a sore as fuck wrist, and probably drop your sword. A) because as I mentioned you have half the strength to hold it and B) because the amount of surface area you have on the swords handle is also halved. A sword and shield combo makes sense because a shield provides better blocking ability than one sword, so you sacrifice striking power for defence. Two swords you sacrifice both, to what end? *_looking cool?_*
Normally I don't hop on internet fights, but you are so very wrong. Moving in plate armor that is properly made is trivial, though it does have some weight. A knight who regularly used armor, though, wouldn't notice the weight much. "Dual wielding" is a stupid damn term, and it really didn't happen often with arming swords or longer weapons outside of the fencing family of combat. However, the use of a short sword or a dagger in one's off-hand wasn't uncommon, especially in the case of grappling. It's more likely that they'd keep the knife on their hip until they had grappled their foe, but those were super deadly in the right spot.
You obviously wouldn't do this with a bastard sword, or any larger sword, so you'd be using one hand to hold the weapon anyway. Parrying != taking a blow, parrying is more equivalent to deflecting the force and moving around it (about which, Austin's reasoning is, they wouldn't be concerned because of their armor). This also wouldn't have been very common against other armored individuals, but against those wearing gambesons or chain, common footsoldiers.
I'm not saying it happened often, or was even common, but it did happen.
I train in escrima baton fighting. Most people prefer to use one baton but I use two. And I kick ass. I can block with both at once in an x shape, and I can parry with one and strike with the other. It is more difficult, but highly rewarding to use two weapons as opposed to just one. There are also special attacks I can perform with two weapons, that are uncounterable with just one weapon. My friend has trained in kendo for the same amount of time I've trained in escrima and every time we spar I am able to lock his weapon in place and beat him with my offhand baton
+christopher corriveau buddy what you just provided is called "anicdodal" evidence which means utter shit just because you do it doesn't mean it was effective.
Does it really have to do with "inhuman agility"? Isn't it more about strength of blows when fighting armored opponents? You see, when you attack, it's not just something your arm does, but instead you strike with most of your body. You pull back and then move forward with the strike. You rotate your body a bit on the strike to give it that extra oomph as well. This ends up moving one side of your body forward to improve the force of the strike, however, the other side pulls back. As a result, if you are dual wielding then your off-hand would have massively diminished striking power, essentially negating the usefulness of a 2nd weapon.
In a duel or when fencing you tend to be unarmored or don't fight to the death. What this means is that the strength you can put behind a blow isn't nearly as important because an unarmored person is much easier to kill meaning that your main-hand does not have to have nearly as much power behind strikes.
Some people dual-wielded historically, but not European knights, no. What's more, with the exception of certain schools of fencing, all the examples I know of are from Eastern martial arts.
Is he ever going to stop being so horribly cringy?
What's so cringy about this video?
+Pedro Henriques the P.S
Justus Morales
Still don't get why it's cringy at all. Just learn to respect eachother opinions and tastes.
Caius Filimon He is an entertainment youtuber so it's normal for him to act childish. His type of childish is funny to me, for me the obnoxious type would be for e.g. Nicktron .
+Caius Filimon you're subbed to Shane Dawson, Scarce, and SSSniperwolf, yet this is where you draw the line? Yeah, ok then.
Whenever a skyrim guard says he took an arrow in the knee it means he/she got married.
2:51 why is the round being fired with a shell attached, I mean did he use a catapult?
Small correction on being able to fire arrows back oftentimes X army would use removable or loose Knox that would fall off or stay attached to the bow therefore the arrows could not seem to be picked up and shot back
If you're talking about shortswords, arming swords, broadswords and the like then swords should be considered more dangerous as you can use a shield to minimise the area to target. Shooting a moving target with a bowman isn't too much of a threat as long as they don't catch you off-guard. A huge group of archers is terrifying because it's like a blanket of death.
1:30 "We are the exception!" - The Mongols
On the terminal ballistics (when the bullet hits something) part it is dependent on the design of the bullet, the original AK-47 and SKS ammo was called M43 and its terminal ballistics were not very good against humans and mostly punched a hole through you, were as the Yugoslavian designed M67 ammunition for the AK and SKS was much better as it did something much similar to the clear ballistics gelatin test shown at 3:00.
Pistol cartridges also don't cause that much hydro static shock, at 3:00 that is a rifle.
Also check out Kingdom Come Deliverance (RPG) they are trying to have realistic medieval combat.
Yeah, Agincourt if I'm not mistaken was pretty much the death knell for full plate armor as the English longbow was so powerful and had no problem piercing armor. Up until that time armored knights had ruled the battlefield, but afterwards they saw a swift decline in use. Calvary became lighter and faster.
you fired a bullet STILL IN ITS CARTRIDGE! 2:48 LOL
bows are pretty awesome. you mentioned English war bows wedding into the joints in armour, but I have also heard that sometimes they were powerful enough to punch through a knight's armored leg and a good deal through his horse's body. It would probably have to hit at ninety degrees so that it didn't deflect off. have you heard similar things?
mount and blade warband is a medieval game where they seem to have put the effort into making the combat realistic. i would really recommend it
"Tiny-as-fuck ball." LMAO. My mom found a Civil War era miniball. The sucker was .50 caliber, and weighed an ounce. There were so many amputations during the Civil War because getting a limb struck by a miniball completely shattered the bones.
The "arrow in the knee" is actually a euphamism for marriage
actually, there were different types of arrows - the main ones were the hunting arrow(The one that can't be pulled out), the long stubbed(It's head was long and thin, designed to pop open mail armor) and short stubbed(designed to peirce plated armor)
totally took me by surprise there.
Swords and Arrows! Armor! Badass fighting men!
then...
Sailor Moon !
I remember reading something a while back about the extra force imparted by an arrow due to it's length, I can't remember all the details but it was something more than mass x area of impact, loosely an arrow and bullet of the same momentum and impact area you get more force out of an arrow
Weren't falchions designed to cleave intto plate armor? I have one and while i can't say I've cut up a knight with it, i HAVE hacked the tailgate and passenger door off a 64 dodge power wagon,and that was when i was 14, so....
I've personally hacked the tailgate off a '64 dodge pickup truck with a falchion, also managed to mangle the door hinge,the hood, and several stabs that got a good 3 to 4 inchs of blade into body panels, so am i super strong then?
" I regret scoffing". Literally laughing out loud. Great way to start my day
If you were my science teacher in school, I'd have a future
"Duel wielding in plate armor..." If you aren't careful, Shad and Skallagrim will find you and hurt you.
how can the small injury (in comparison to a sword impact injury) sustained from an arrow launched into the body, be worse than a gaping wound left by a sword blade, i know it can be stitched up but if you're arrow wound is going to get infected then so is your sword wound, regardless of dressing or treatments
What I've heard is that when army's did have armor. It was not always being pierced by arrows but instead the force in which they hit you at.
Imagine an army of people in full plate armor charging in to the battle punching people in the face
Oh man, that Static Shock joke made me so happy.
I'd be willing to bet there's a "roguelike" out there with an armor and ranged combat system complicated enough to cover all the subtle issues you mentioned. Heck, Dwarf Fortress's combat and damage system covers at least a bit of the layering and vulnerability issues with protective equipment.
Was the music that kicked in at 2:22 from Mafia 1?
Arrow in the knee suddenly makes so much more sense
I flinched when he said the arrow had to be pulled through
Another important weapon for a fantasy setting: Daggers! I'm curious how effective the fantasy rogue would actually be in a realistic setting.