Use METATRON55 to get 55% off your first month at Scentbird sbird.co/3rqUkpz

@freman007

7 ай бұрын

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.

@joku02

7 ай бұрын

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.

@char-leewiebe7199

7 ай бұрын

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. 💜🤍❤

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

@@Shadow-of-Mampang I probably will respond at one point. She likes bags, I like armour.

@The_Gallowglass

7 ай бұрын

"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.

@DogDooWinner

7 ай бұрын

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.

@ericvulgate

7 ай бұрын

Unless Carthage had nukes!

@niksonrex88

7 ай бұрын

@@DogDooWinner 99% less casualties!!! 😲😲😲

@Ptaaruonn

7 ай бұрын

Right?! Or if knights used ballistic shields.

@InfernosReaper

7 ай бұрын

@@DogDooWinner So, the power of a regular incandescent lightbulb from back in the day?

"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!"

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

Pretty much

@MedimaliVS

7 ай бұрын

@@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 :)

@RespectMyAuthoritaah

7 ай бұрын

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

Those arrows hitting the so called breast plate sounded like they were hitting an aluminum trash can 😂

@ew3612

7 ай бұрын

The penetration looked like it too

@stunitech

7 ай бұрын

Absolutely. I was expecting Oscar to pop out the top complaining

@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378

7 ай бұрын

Reactionary vs Realism

@Blox117

7 ай бұрын

ok but you have to respect that medieval archers were MLG 360 no scope pros

@sabin97

7 ай бұрын

aluminium.

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.

@Alfred5555

7 ай бұрын

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.

@marklaurenzi1609

7 ай бұрын

@jamesquinn4959 Sorry people jumped on you. I may have missed the point.

@Alfred5555

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

@unknownsword9042

7 ай бұрын

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……..

@Naptosis

7 ай бұрын

​@@Alfred5555He's human, we all misunderstand and get a wee bit heated sometimes. 🤍

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.

@Gillymonster18

7 ай бұрын

I think car bonnets actually might be thicker than this “armor.” 😂

@ExtreamClownTown

7 ай бұрын

Katanas can melt through steel beams, And kill Gods! Don't underestimate the power of Anime.

@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378

7 ай бұрын

​@@ExtreamClownTown Oh look the definition of fictional power fantasy!

@lightningpenguin8937

7 ай бұрын

​@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378 There’s a reason why JRPG have you fight gods.

@ulforcemegamon3094

7 ай бұрын

Meanwhile katanas couldn't parry longsword since the katana would shatter lol

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😅

@Supreme_Debaucher

7 ай бұрын

Actually, armor can be slashed through with a dagger, but only by me, or someone as powerful as me (if such a person exists).

@DIREWOLFx75

7 ай бұрын

"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.

@guillaume4519

7 ай бұрын

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.

@kaizokujimbei143

7 ай бұрын

@@Supreme_Debaucher Are you having doubts about your own existence?

@Atari5732

7 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

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.

@ModernKnight

7 ай бұрын

@@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!

@lalli8152

7 ай бұрын

Often Lars seems to use the cheapo costume armors in his tests, and even the eye slits seems to be lot bigger than historical

@robinthrush9672

7 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, spectacle is like a lie; it gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on.

@privateinformation2960

7 ай бұрын

A.mounted knight is moving as fast as the horse will carry him An unmounted knight might be walking slowly

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

@Real11BangBang

7 ай бұрын

I see we are talking about archery not muskets. Lol Oh well

@gamediverbr

7 ай бұрын

@@Real11BangBang still, your commentary its a really interesting piece of information!

@markbyrd7710

7 ай бұрын

Exactly! Bullet-proof

@Real11BangBang

7 ай бұрын

​​​@@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.

@Alfred5555

7 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@marcogenovesi8570

7 ай бұрын

Does not matter, do it anyway

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

Looking forward to seeing your take mate :)

@Collin_Cooper

7 ай бұрын

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.

@epicnamepwns1242

7 ай бұрын

It would be deliciously ironic to see "Boromir" fail to be harmed by arrows. 😂

@footrot17

7 ай бұрын

The world is full of 'i was gonna' s

If Lars tried selling this armor to a medieval lord he'd be drawn and quartered for fraud.

@trader2137

7 ай бұрын

what if the armor is actually thick and real medieval representation? you dont know, so dont draw conclusions

@ramoverde4133

7 ай бұрын

🤣😁😂

@russellfisher1303

7 ай бұрын

@@trader2137it’s not

@Specter_1125

7 ай бұрын

⁠​⁠@@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.

@Mtonazzi

7 ай бұрын

@@trader2137 It's a Nauticalmart cuirass. They're made of 18ga (1.2mm) untreated stainless steel.

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.

@scipio7837

7 ай бұрын

Great set of videos. Love his current pilum work too.

@sheep1ewe

7 ай бұрын

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.

@sakesaurus1706

7 ай бұрын

​@@sheep1ewewhy don't we do damscene process in modern forging? Sounds awesome

@sheep1ewe

7 ай бұрын

@@sakesaurus1706 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!

@torbjornlindberg3246

7 ай бұрын

@@sakesaurus1706 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

For the removal of the arrow rest, his logic seems to be that it slows down the nocking process (at least the one that Lars is used to) so he sliced it off since it shouldn't otherwise change the performance of the bow other than making it more simple for his muscle memory to do speed shooting.

@JETWTF

7 ай бұрын

I would love to see him properly use a bow for speed shooting instead of partially drawn and lowest weight possible. Oh wait he can't do that.

@juncheok8579

7 ай бұрын

4:09 "The arrow rest did not exist on historic bows, so lars removed the arrow rest and filed down the middle of the bow" point still stands, the whole bow didn't exist on historic bows

@tommylitchfield3450

7 ай бұрын

And the video completely overlooks WHY Lars was able to use the "New" bow design faster , which is in fact an Oneida Eagle that was invented in 1980!!! The reason he "struggled" with the normal "Cams on the ends of the limbs" bow was because the normal compound he was using is a RIGHT handed bow, with the arrow shelf on the left side of the riser. Lars shoot off the RIGHT side of the riser with his particular style, so the Oneida Eagle that he cut up and ruined is a LEFT HANDED bow with the arrow shelf on the right side of the riser, which Lars uses with his archery style. This whole thing is a joke... Calling a bow that is uncommon because it is too quirky for most people to copy the style of which has been on the market for FORTY THREE YEARS a "New" bow.....

I love the fact that Lars shoots the armor when it's 10 or less meters. Oh, look, shooting something at point blank is more effective than shooting it et 25 meters ! I hope for the archer that his shoots will be instant kill because at this range, he is screwed.

@0num4

7 ай бұрын

Right! A modern day human armed with a holstered pistol will rarely stop a blade-wielding assailant from 25ft or less, even if that assailant is at a standstill ("Tueller Drill"). Imagine, instead, a cavalryman charging at full gallop with a lance, from similar distance...you're absolutely fucked! Even if you somehow neutralize the rider, you're not stopping that horse from bowling you over, likely crushing you and causing severe, if not lethal, damage. Let's see this gizmo work to stop an assailant in an automobile at 30 mph or more. It will fail 100% of the time.

@kaizokujimbei143

7 ай бұрын

If that was real armor it wouldn't have mattered how far or close he made the shot.

@cwg9238

7 ай бұрын

@@kaizokujimbei143 yeah its hollywood armor. in the real deal back in the day i dont think they cared about penetrating steel plate, it was just about hitting the guy a bunch of times and knocking the wind out of him and demoralizing him. yes you havent pierced his armor, but you have definitely intimidated his soul.

@dragonace119

7 ай бұрын

@@cwg9238 Add in the fact that the dents start to add up after a while and will restrict breathing. If you get lucky, an arrow splinter will go through a gap in the armor and maybe cause at least a minor injury.

@stevebuckley7788

7 ай бұрын

Archers could fire from behind spearmen and pavise bearers at close range with mounted archers being especially potent due to their elevation in the saddle. The idea of shooting arrows at close range where more lethal is not so "Hollywood" as people think.

I use cut resistant sleeves and gloves at work. Many times in over ten years I have seen pieces of aluminium just slide over the surface. It might not be medieval armor but it show, at least for me, that armor did indeed work.

16:07 Okay this part made me heated for a bit. Even today, we have tanks (Which is a form of modern armor) and we have weapons that can deal with them and many can be carried and used used by the infantry, and yet we still use tanks, because the battlefield isn't that simple

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."

Army vet here. They call me the Michellin man from all the armor I wore. AND, my battle buddy can attest to armor. Took three .556 from a fallen brother's rifle. Didn't know till after the engagement how many times...he didn't go down, either! ARMOR WOKRS! I use groin, elbow, knee pads, PLUS trauma plates. I'm pre 9/11 Interceptor with boron carbide plates

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for your service and comment

@BlackRepublican95B

7 ай бұрын

Thank you for all that you do! You kept me sane through Covid. I'm a huge Rome fan, one of the guys with the SPQR brand you love! I wish I could've been Black Achilles, lol

@Darksky1001able

7 ай бұрын

Brother, being in the army, can you tell us what material modern military armor is made from?

@lucibvee

7 ай бұрын

​@@Darksky1001able generally ceramic plates with kevlar Steel is more common on eastern europe

@HelghastStalker

7 ай бұрын

@@lucibvee Soviet and modern Russian armor vests generally abandoned steel around the mid 1980s in favor of Titanium.

Tod's Workshop might get a lot of clicks, but it's pretty obvious he's just a smart guy who loves nerding out on these historical experiments. The clicks are a bonus, not the main goal.

@sowianskizonierz2693

7 ай бұрын

I think that's probably why he gets so many clicks in the first plate. He's just an awesome guy

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

@paulodelima5705

7 ай бұрын

Thats why those with cheap armor used shields, to block arrows. Those who had better armor would fight with two handed weapons.

lol at the 'armor would disappear' thing. Modern high caliber rifle bullets (and armor piercing rounds) will blow through steel plate, but soldiers are absolutely still wearing it.

That's always been my issue with Lars, his whole "double arrow" thing wouldn't be effective cause he only goes half draw with each arrow, but since he shoots aluminum crap it looks effective.

@MaxRavenclaw

7 ай бұрын

I think the first time I heard about Lars was regarding exactly the drama you described, Which was why I was surprised when I saw him mentioned on the Shad's channel in a positive light.

@1sthander373

7 ай бұрын

+ he would Never get that close.

@trequor

7 ай бұрын

Pierces flesh no problem

@t2av159

7 ай бұрын

Lars , no offense... seems kind of a 'slow' individual

@whiteeye3453

7 ай бұрын

@@MaxRavenclaw because he is smart and debunking this video was a waste of time since I the end he admitted this was experiment

All I really want to add, I wrote a comic when I was a kid about a time-traveling skateboarder who teaches armored Knights to settle their differences through jousting, as in POOL jousting a'la Skate or Die! Seeing the armor on a skateboard brought back memories! Wish I still had it, but the dog chewed it up.

@ericpode6095

7 ай бұрын

Along with your homework! 😂😂😂 Not doubting you, just popped up in my mind (what little there is left). 😂😂😂

@JamesRDavenport

7 ай бұрын

@@ericpode6095 Oh yeah! Ha! Good one! Like it. He also enjoyed eating the accessories off of my action figures, especially capes. Got a lot of fond memories of that dog. 😉

@alantrevor3658

7 ай бұрын

Well, I can't speak to the quality of your artwork. But as far as the logic of your story goes, it probably makes more sense than 75% of the comics published these days.... make that 90% if you exclude manga / manhwa.

Love this video! Great debunking! ❤

@jordanthomas4379

7 ай бұрын

Metatron is fantastic at these videos, is this the first time you’ve ever seen him in a video??

@KenzieScarlett

7 ай бұрын

@@jordanthomas4379 lol he is fantastic! And no, I’ve seen many of his videos 😊

@jordanthomas4379

7 ай бұрын

@@KenzieScarlettthat’s awesome, I love the Metatron, he’s amazing, have you ever met him?

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

@@jordanthomas4379 She knows me quite well, she is my wife 😄

@KenzieScarlett

7 ай бұрын

@@metatronyt 🤍🤍🤍🤍

So, a different type of arrow shot from a modern bow (which couldn't be made using medieval technology) at a decorative set of armor on a scarecrow riding a skateboard would have changed history? Somehow? Ok, sure. Why not.

Lars: Im going to test the differences between a medieval bow and a modern one Also Lars: I had to change the modern bow because it was too different from the medieval one

@1sthander373

7 ай бұрын

It's also a bow used primarily in fishing.

@the11382

7 ай бұрын

No, his way of doing archery just doesn't work well with arrow rests.

@1sthander373

7 ай бұрын

@@the11382 His way of shooting archery is childish and he would never get as close as he is + the bow he chooses is much weaker than the one he didn't choose (Hoyt) + the arrows he uses aren't Hunting arrows they're just target arrows. He's using Either aluminium or carbon Fiber or both Aluminum wrapped in carbon Fiber arrows.

@TheLiamis

7 ай бұрын

​@@1sthander373pse.

@TheLiamis

7 ай бұрын

​@@1sthander373probably only at 35 lbs too.

"Actual historical archery" *watches Lars do a 360 jumping noscope eyeshot aight

I actually watched the video that you responded to in this one before you uploaded this one and I left a comment which said. Ok so the bow with metal arrows can go through that chest plate more than I expected, and far enough to kill a person. But I want to know how thick it was and what material it was made of. The thickness and material used in the armour are very important with regards to how well it will do against attacks like arrows. And for reference the on used in Tod’s video was 2.5mm thick and made of hardened steel. If the one in this video is made of thinner metal or weaker metal then it won’t do as well against attacks as the one in Tod’s video did.

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.

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

Weapons vs. armour has always been an interesting competition. At time one side dominated and at others it was somewhat balanced.

@trequor

7 ай бұрын

Even prisoners use paper body armour for anti-shank defense

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.

@ramoverde4133

7 ай бұрын

Jup!

@LostBeetle

7 ай бұрын

He's a straight up con artist, been taking advantage impressing people ignorant on the topic of archery since the start.

@ramoverde4133

7 ай бұрын

I agree with you! A circus performer. His chatter is just bad...@@LostBeetle

@jasommato9110

7 ай бұрын

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

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.".

@legendarytr1bal

7 ай бұрын

Moreso "I bought a small toy remote control tank, now let me shoot at it with a hand gun."

I really like all your videos, but I feel like I enjoy watching the ones from the debunking series as much as you enjoy creating them.

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

Omg, finally someone renowned debunks this video. It's been so long since I first watched it!

30 seconds in i hear the name "lars anderson" and thought "oh not this again". Being skilled at using a bow does not make him a expert on history.

Another video to see that many do not understand basic physics, here the conservation of energy. Discounting all losses such as friction, the energy of an arrow will equal the energy spent in the motion of drawing it, so draw weight × draw distance × probably a 1/2 factor somewhere if the bow strength increases by how much you pull the string. It doesn't matter how modern the design of a bow is, the energy will not exceed that. A better design will be closer from 100% efficiency but it ends here. The bows they are using seem nowhere near as strong as a yew longbow, hence less energy transfered to the arrow

I mentioned this in a previous video, but if you go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, they have a remarkable exhibit of armor. Several of the chest pieces have a dent where they were shot. This armor was proof tested before delivery to prove that it was bulletproof.

Wow! Nadia seems to shoot with perfect form. I think I'm going to go watch the original video, purely for research purposes of course.

@ramoverde4133

7 ай бұрын

😁😁

@robo5013

7 ай бұрын

Going to invite Mary Palmer and her five sisters to join?

Todd of Todd's workshop uses a modern crossbow that delivers the same energy as a warbow. Still doesn't penetrate properly made armour

Honestly, Lars should stop making claims about history. He’s been consistently wrong and sometimes his claims were outright fraudulent.

@whiteeye3453

7 ай бұрын

Since when?

@coffeefox5703

7 ай бұрын

@@whiteeye3453 Since the beginning of time.

@BOZ_11

7 ай бұрын

@@coffeefox5703 right after we harnessed fire

@whiteeye3453

7 ай бұрын

@@coffeefox5703 haha that's funny But seriously he was never wrong In fact he rediscover many akncient lost archery techniques

@SeattleJeffin

7 ай бұрын

LOL says him@@whiteeye3453

This is like saying the Titanic had a metal hull, it had armor!

We also have to consider how the speed of a cavalry charge would influence the arrow

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.

@victoriazero8869

7 ай бұрын

Making them thicker instead of tin setpiece.

@romansofthewestandeast824

7 ай бұрын

@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.

"Watch in amazement as i use a slightly modified modern compound bow to poke modern metal shafted arrows through some low grade larp armour." I saw the video when it first came out, I think I suggested that they get in touch with Tod to perform some tests

Love the video and I have a suggestion. Ive recently seen you videos on biblically accurate angels, demonw, and the story about Aram and Eve. How a bout biblically accurate monsters, like the leviathan?

Stainless steel is great for modern reenacment. Less time is needed for mantanence and nobody tried to kill you for real. BTW, Kevin Hicks from History Squad is among other archer-reenactor with few decades of practice. His recipe was to aim for weak points like armpits and elbows. And especially groins if knight falls over.

@puffincz3482

7 ай бұрын

That's true, but also that thing? You'd bend that breastplate with a firm pillow strike.

@mladenmatosevic4591

7 ай бұрын

@@puffincz3482 I have stainless steel cutlery and most of kitchen knives. They work fine for me. Also I was joking and I guess most of modern reenactment does not involve medieval style melee fights with hard blows from real weapons. In that case your shiny polished cuirass would not remain shiny, polished and spotless anyway, especially if you need to heat it in forge to bent it back in shape.

@puffincz3482

7 ай бұрын

@@mladenmatosevic4591 Yeah, here I am agreeing with you. Stainless steel cutlery works fine, but also I recently broke a cutlery knife with just my bare hands. Really depends on what sorta reenactment you're doing. I'm personally doing LARP, and my helmet is 2mms of quality heat treated steel, and I wouldn't have it otherwise, lol. At least I have certainty that some dumbass with improperly made soft weapons won't bend my helmet, because I could strike this one with sharp weapons and it'd be fine. btw, if you bend some dumbassery like stainless steel helmet, just hammer it back into place, lol.

@mladenmatosevic4591

7 ай бұрын

@@puffincz3482 Scola Gladiatoria mentioned that Solingen used to mass produce sword blades which British exported even to India, where they would put hilt according to local liking. But improvements in fired weapons reduced need for swords so they switched to cutlery and in pre-War Europe every middle class household tried to have Solingen stainless steel cutlery for daily usage. These days yacht metal parts and industrial fermentation tanks are mostly made of stainless steel (Inox).

Metatron debunking armour and weapons videos...ah good old days.

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.

Not medieval but In 1879 kelly gang In Australia forged suits of Armour out of plough mouldboards, over several months which withstood dozens of shots from Martini Henry rifles & spencer repeating Carbines in the Glenrowan seige.

the argument that if they had metal arrows they wouldn't have armor is just silly. we have bullets and we have bullet armor... they called chest plates.

Thank god you exist tbh. Those kind of videos (debunking misconceptions) are my favorite of yours.

I'd have loved to see a collaboration of this video so that you guys could discuss what is necessary to meet an acceptable and agreed upon standard for the period armor, good luck!

Anyone can shoot through armor with a 50 BMG

@theamericannestormakhno2360

7 ай бұрын

@@luissuazo3684 a .308

@pashapasovski5860

6 ай бұрын

Tank armor!? Even armored car can stop 50Bmg

@theamericannestormakhno2360

6 ай бұрын

@@pashapasovski5860 medieval armor🤣🤣🤣

@pashapasovski5860

6 ай бұрын

@@theamericannestormakhno2360 you weren't specific, hahaha

@theamericannestormakhno2360

6 ай бұрын

@@pashapasovski5860 i thought people would assume i meant medieval armor considering what the video is about

I think a fun video about just shooting arrows at costume armor would also be good for giving channels with a budget the idea to do the proper version. Though to be honest, I would be more willing to trust a science channel like Kyle Hill's for that sort of thing.

"If a knight is running at you in full plate, run my liege!" That's some great advice.

@appa609

7 ай бұрын

True. You'll be faster.

It was a strange experience because the videos of Lars made me interested in archery to have some home and learn the techniques he uses. And implicitly it helped me find your channel too. I mean you were super respectfull, so big like, but still strange experience :D

Hello Metatron! Thank you for the video. I personally think it is interesting to test a realistic replica of medieval armor of different cost against a modern compound bow with all-metal arrows. This bow transfers near double the kinetic energy of a traditional bow of the same max draw, so the arrow goes about sqrt(2) time faster and penetrates much better. Also an all-metal arrow is a) thin + b) heavy enough (higher pressure on the tip) c) durable, so it also penetrates much better then a historical wooden shaft with bodkin point arrow. The really interesting question is could medieval people make such a bow with Renaissance-era technology. Could you, please, make a video on this point?

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

I think theoretically they could have. Not out of the same materials and that would probably have made the thing too heavy. And hideously expensive. So that's probably why nobody tried to downsize the pulley concept for use in bows.

@alantitter7879

7 ай бұрын

Your Physics are somewhat off .An Oneida bow at 56lbs (31"DL) with an 1100grain arrow shoots thru a chrono at 153fps.Joe gibbs shooting with a 160 lb warbow and an 1126 grain arrow gets 196fps out of the bow.With the use of arrows over 12gpp ; a compound bow would not hold any real advantage over a medieval war bow. The all metal arrows used do not give arrow specifics and does not seem to take into account arrow spine.I seriously doubt that they would have any reasonable accuracy over distance.There are too many inaccuracies with the video to be taken seriously as anything scientific.

@lorgaraurelian1480

7 ай бұрын

@@alantitter7879 Thank you for the data. Look, you wrote that a 56lbs (27 kilo) comp bow pushes an 1100 grain (75 gram) arrow at 153fps (50 mps), while a 3 (THREE) times heavier max draw weight classic bow pushes (almost) the same arrow at just 20% higher velocity! Imagine how a 160 lb Oneida bow would perform! I guess it would be smth around 300 fps!

@stalhandske9649

7 ай бұрын

@@kaltaron1284 Concur. If one wants a historical analogy, wheellock firearms might serve as such - very quick to load, reliable to use & more weather resistant when compared to contemporary options. But machining the parts was both ridiculously difficult & punitively expensive with technology of the time, so that much more brutish flint lock prevailed and wheellock was never more than a sumptuous quirk of few affluent users.

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

@@stalhandske9649 Or later the lever repeating rifles. Good for wealthy individuals or some special units maybe but not within the possibilities to outfit your whole army.

Lars Anderson has been on my "grain of salt" list ever since his first viral video where he made all of his claims of "arrows are never shot from the left" and "back quivers never existed" and "Persians contextually must have had stopwatches because they were supposed to be able to shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds" to eventually "arrows are actually really easy to dodge and I'll prove it by shooting arrows past my friends so you can't actually tell how far away I'm shooting from them!" Dude is a talented trick shooter who has figured the best way for himself to do trick shots. All of his experimental Archaeology breaks down to "I don't like how they did things back then, so they must have done them my way" is problematic at best and historically misleading at the worst. To this day, I still hold an eternal mark against the KZreadr Gaijin Goomba from back when he was still doing videos on Game Theory. He was trying to analyze how historically reasonable Farcry Primal was. He pointed to the "shooting two arrows at once" skill and confirmed it as fact because "Lars Anderson recently released a video where he is rediscovering ancient archery techniques!" Nah, man.

I have waited for this video sooo long! Thanks metatron

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.

@handsolo1209

7 ай бұрын

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.

@cwg9238

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

@UteChewb

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

@DaShikuXI

7 ай бұрын

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.

Maybe it's a very "historical" armor made from Pepsi cans?

@ramoverde4133

7 ай бұрын

😂🤣😁

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

your mastering even the comedy aspect of history video reacting. well done sir !

The Metatron is not only the greatest man in history, he’s the greatest clapper of historical cheeks of all time! We are all privileged beyond belief to hear the truth from you Metatron!!!!!

There’s a extremely good research paper out there that goes deep into the physics behind arrow penetration. Also; Lars Anderson has been disowned by the greater archery community due to unsafe practices.

@the11382

7 ай бұрын

Never heard of a scandal with lars andersen, what unsafe practises are we talking about?

@GamelessOne

7 ай бұрын

@@the11382 Shooting stuff off peoples head and other daring stunts that could go bad. Nothing happened though, I live in Denmark, would surely have heard about it.

@alexanderflack566

6 ай бұрын

Not just the safety aspect; many of his claims are flat out wrong. Foot archers stopped caring about mobility when cavalry became common, and most of his claims from Arabic Archery are from the chapter on trick shooting. He points to that as his contemporary source, then conveniently neglects to mention that he's ignoring 90% of the book and taking most of the rest out of context. It's like if someone "rediscovers" Annie Oakley's mirror shot trick, then claims that people actually used that in gunfights historically: impressive trick, but it was never a combat technique.

as per usual, great video and also... great shirt i might add, you wouldnt happen to remember where you got it?

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

It’s a 15th century arming doublet based on the paintings by Piero della Francesca. I got it from Medieval Design

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.

"If they could've penetrated armor, then armor wouldn't be used" [Looks at all the Tanks still being used right now]

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

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

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.

You are right, on the 14:45 time mark of your video we can see on the light the Lars “armor” deformed in waves like a thin sheet of tin, around the perforation holes. This betrays probable use of a press on thin soft metal, rather than blacksmith’s work on proper metal.

IN regards to the archer video, this is one of those videos a kid watches and argues in middle school lunch period. I think it's something more done in fun and less in the search for innovation. No need to tear it apart. That being said, I enjoyed the video. Keep it up.

Metatron is getting pretty darn good at intros and comedy skits

Yeah, but here’s the real question. Could the armour…penetrate a bow?!

@ExtreamClownTown

7 ай бұрын

Only in soviet Russia does the armor pierce the bow.

You are a very entertaining, witty , nerdy , headbanger lol :) Luv your vids

I'm glad you got around to this, that video has bothered me for ages.

I rolled my eyes at the part when he said that with a modern bow you don't even need to be strong. Well, no matter how fancy your bow is, it won't help you on that. The power of the shot only depends on two things: the draw length and the poundage. Yes, a modern bow might have larger poundage for the same size and weight as a medieval one, but you still need to be able to draw it fully to get its maximum potential. And for that, you need strength. The other thing to note is that even in medieval times there were different arrows. For heavier bows they used heavier arrows. So if you use a small wooden arrow for your super powerful modern bow, of course it will bounce off the armor instead of penetrating.

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

A modern bow can "cheat" by increasing the effective draw length with pulleys and such. So you get more effective draw out of your power.

@haakoflo

7 ай бұрын

While I understand that one who knows some basic physics may think the energy only depends on draw length and poundage, this is not accurate. A historical bow will not give all the stored-up energy back to the arrow on release, but instead waste a lot of that energy to accelerate the the bow. With a modern bow, much less energy is wasted and is instead transferred to the bow. Tod's Workshop did a comparision between a 150lbs modern crossbow and a 960lbs medieval one, and the modern one's bolts would actually shoot bolts with more energy. Now the modern bow had longer draw length, but not 6x longer.

@kangirigungi

7 ай бұрын

@@haakoflo That makes sense.

@alexanderflack566

6 ай бұрын

@@haakoflo There's far less of a gap with bows compared to crossbows. Yew and wood/horn/sinew composite are both pretty close to fiberglass laminated limbs in performance, while steel is not even close. I would be surprised if that steel prod gave 40% efficiency, while English longbows (and most composite bows) tended to be in the 60-70% range.

Lars Anderson “historical” videos should always be watched with popcorn

@alexanderflack566

6 ай бұрын

And alcohol.

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.

@docstockandbarrel

7 ай бұрын

Not always. English dismounted to fight on foot, and at Agincourt many of the French also dismounted.

@rickmckee8270

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

@docstockandbarrel

7 ай бұрын

@@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.

First

@johan.ohgren

7 ай бұрын

Second

@CreepyMF

7 ай бұрын

You bastard, have my upvote.

I understand Lar's video is not very scientific, but I also think this video is a bit needlessly pedantic, I'm more interested in the historical implications rather than the criticism of the scientific method. When I first saw Lar's video, I'm was quite surprised that making a stiffer metal shaft arrow increased the penetration so drastically, and it did make me beg the question why they didn't use full metal arrows, medieval full metal jackets if you will. I understand that in a historically accurate test it might be found that the arrows hardly do any better at all so it would be pointless, but I doubt that. It would open the question to how, of course they couldn't make the typical millions of arrows an army would have all out of metal, but if they were so drastically better at penetrating armour, maybe they could just make 1% of their ammo full metal, just to be used as a special shot when they have a good position on heavily armoured opponents, or when the field has been cleared of most of the lightly or unarmoured poor infantry. It could also be experimented on, perhaps you don't need a full metal shaft, but just a metal jacket, that would give enough rigidity for a huge increase in penetration, perhaps not even the entire shaft need be jacketed, just the front 6 inches or so, maybe even try a new type of arrow head similar to that of a pilum, something like a 4 or 5 inch solid metal needle head, like an oversized bodkin. I just think it's very interesting to see the possibilities.

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

It doesn’t provide that, because the armour doesn’t represent the real armour used on the field of battle. You are proving exactly my point with this comment. You saw the metal arrow penetrate something that looks like Medieval armour and now you started questioning real Medieval tactics. That’s the misinformation part. The test does not count. The result does not count. If he could do that on a real Medieval armour then we could talk and speculate.

@Alfred5555

7 ай бұрын

@@metatronyt No, you're assuming what you think I'm assuming. I didn't say these arrows would penetrate historically accurate armour, I literally said "I understand that in a historically accurate test it might be found that the arrows hardly do any better at all", but I openly admit that I doubt that. This test doesn't prove anything about historically accurate armour penetration, Lars himself mentions that at the end of the video. But the video (and just basic science) does demonstrate that typically a more ridged arrow penetrates better than a flexible one. That I feel is the main point that should be taken away from the video. (Historically speaking, hence, crossbow bolts). This alone is more than enough to simply question and experiment to see what might of been possible 500-1000 even 2000 years ago. Like I said at the beginning, I'm less interested in a review of scientific methodology than I am in the possible historical implications, simply asking questions and experimenting, which I see as perfectly reasonable and fun. I don't see it as "questioning real medieval tactics" as you put it, though there is absolutely nothing wrong in doing so, questioning and debating is the ethos of good science, not choosing a standard and only researching points that reinforce that standard. We know they didn't typically use full metal arrows in the past, we've got that information, so its only sensible to ask why not, and for funs sake to see how and if they could of been of any use anyway, so as to answer that question. I find the idea that we cant theorise or question anything, especially largely anachronistic fun things, before first having a full fledged entirely historically accurate highly expensive practical demonstration, too to be needlessly pedantic.

@metatronyt

7 ай бұрын

@@Alfred5555 I find your constant use of the word “pedantic” off putting. Also at the end you built a strawman and attacked it. I don’t see any sense in continuing the debate. Thanks for watching

@Alfred5555

7 ай бұрын

"Constant use"? I'm sorry but I simply do think it is needlessly pedantic, I said it once and then reiterated that comment, and I'm now forced to reiterate it again. What strawman? I can only say, no I didn't. Surely saying "Also at the end you built a strawman and attacked it", would prove the relevance of my previous comment, "No, you're assuming what you think I'm assuming.". @@metatronyt

@whiterunguard9465

7 ай бұрын

⁠@@Alfred5555 I understand the thought you have put into this and I even agree with you to an extent but you and metatron from what I can gather were arguing about different things. From what I can gather, in this video and in his response to your comment his main that “testing” videos like this can lead to a large amount of widespread misinformation as people take what they see on KZread as fact (even videos that tell their audience that what they are doing shouldn’t be taken as historical evidence) because people don’t actually do their own research. But what your trying to argue is that it could be interesting to see what full metal/re-enforced arrows would look like but that it can be very expensive to test and thus we should cut people some slack for not testing with 100% historical armour. I agree with what your saying, armour is expensive. but even a low production cost video that is trying to test a consept like reinforced/metal arrows still needs to follow the scientific meathod. The video that is being discussed here isn’t even trying to be scientific at all and that is what metatron was attacking, he wasn’t trying to attack the idea that it should never be tested or that all tests must be done on 100% historical armour. In this video they don’t tell us anything about the armour or the arrows and they don’t even shoot the same spot, nor do they fire a sufficient amount of non metal arrows at the target. In summary, don’t bother trying to debate metatron on this as you are not even talking about the same core problem. As for my thoughts on metal arrows? Real war arrows are very thick and hard anyway so metal would mainly just be adding weight, the arrows used in the video were thin and flimsy arrows that were not made for war. Sorry if I miss represented any of either of your arguments, and I hope we can all understand each other are coming from a well meaning place.

Watching him pretending to fumble with the modern bows and the arrow rest reminded me overwhelmingly of those 2am informercials where people pretend they don't understand how to use a blanket, or a mitten, or a common tool that's been in use unaltered for 300 years, or other simple things. But then instead of trying to sell us a "better" bow that's actually worse in every way (for the low low price of ten payments of $29.95 plus shipping and handling), he tries to sell us the idea that plate armor was terrible and people just kept wearing it because they were idiots.

I love your channel Metatron.

That lady archer wasn’t just slinging arrows, she was slinging cake

I recently came across this video too... thanks for the video response, always great to hear your views

I’m glad you made this. I watched the original video and the dude is an amazing Legolas level archer I could tell that wasn’t buhurt quality armor right away. More something cool to hang on your wall or wear to the renaissance faire. I enjoyed it but didn’t think it reflected a real combat scenario. I also like how your criticism of really almost every video I’ve seen you do is based on facts and not petty nastiness or pointless insults. Really great content.

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.

ok, maybe I am way mistaken here. I agree with all your points. I am not a historian. But I was under the assumption the creation of a crossbow was because it could punch through armor even though it had a short kinetic range which lead to improvements to armor to combat crossbow bolts. Cannons and hand cannons also lead to another improvement of armor to resist them, but I assume the cost and battle strategies changed pretty quick at this time as technology grew.

Another thing - penetrating the plate armor doesn't mean we have defeated the knight - those arrows did not go deep. There is no guarantee they would even touch his skin, not mentioning serious wound. So - surprise, surprise - even as it is low quality costume of a breastplate it did protect the wearer and allowed him to avoid serious injury or even death :).

Amusingly, Lars work on Comanche archery seems really good, a master work in theoretical historical reconstruction.

A thought came to mind here... What if cavalry charges actually made it so armour worn by knights offered LESS protection against arrows compared to if they were stationary? Here's my thinking: when knights do a cavalry charge, they're travelling at a pretty significant speed. So with an incoming arrow coming from the opposite direction, the impact wouldn't solely be affected by the speed the arrow travels, but also by the speed which the knight is moving into the arrow. Would be a very interesting experiment to conduct to see if damage to armour is greater when it travels at speed into oncoming arrows as opposed to being stationary.

@AKUJIVALDO

7 ай бұрын

LOL clearly mathematics isn't your thing. Try comparing arrow speed and a knight charge speed.

@sevenproxies4255

7 ай бұрын

@@AKUJIVALDO Lol clearly physics isn't your thing. Yes an arrow and a knight travels at different speeds, obviously. Recurve bow arrows can travel at speeds up to 150 mph. So if shot at a stationary target, the arrow will hit it a bit below 150 mph (it loses horizontal velocity the longer it travels due to gravitational pull and air resistance). A horse galloping speed however is somewhere between 25-30 mph. If a knight is charging at the archer, then the target is no longer stationary. It's moving TOWARDS the archer (and the arrow) at a significant velocity. Meaning that when the arrow hits the charging knight, it hits it at slightly below 150 + 25 or up to 150 + 30 mph, because the opposite velocity of the knight is added to the velocity of the arrow when determining energy transfer to the target, according to the laws of physics.

@metatron my only comment is about your criticism of Lars filing the arrow support -- he didnt do it to be representative of medieval times, but because it gets in the way of speedy loading--- the comment about the old bows not having it is in reference to how they old archers didnt havr the impediment to their shooting

Only note for the end: there's nothing wrong with a cheaper production. There's no obligation to do a high quality test. Indeed, low-budget is the main way to do exploration of concept. If they failed with their setup, the high-quality crews know they don't even need to try. Now they've shown proof of concept, and maybe it's worth a deeper dive. Other than that: on the "armor would've disappeared" it probably is a better answer that this depends on more factors. Notably range: if this only works at short range, armor can still overcome it (heavy cuirass on the front line to absorb the hits, then a less armored second line can go in for the kill). And as you mention, expense of the arrow shafts.

14:43 You see how the holes pucker outwards? That's because the "armor" is so weak that when the arrows were pulled out by hand the "armor" bent. You can't get much more low grade than that (unless it was aluminum foil).

Lars uses a toy bow. Love to see him try his "stunts" using , even a 50pounder hunting bow. With a compound bow, you STILL have to draw that bow, gearing or not, You STILL have to START drawing it back

It's one of my pet peeves with those tests... They take cheap larp armor and expect it to behave like historical armor... Strength doesn't really matter... you don't get more lb out of a bow by being stronger, if you pull it the same length... no sense in using a "not so strong archer"...

@MorbidEel

7 ай бұрын

I think that bit was about longbow vs compound bow and the mechanical advantage provided by the compound bow's cams. They were just glossing over too much stuff.

@stoicshield

7 ай бұрын

@@MorbidEel they were using the same bow though?

"its too slow to use an arrow rest!" cut immediately to using his thumb as an arrow rest... yes, because an arrow rest that will always be in the same spot no matter what would be slower than making sure your thumb is in the right spot each time.

@kaltaron1284

7 ай бұрын

It's probably more accurate to say that he's used to shooting without an arrow rest, so he would be slower with one. Given enough training he might be as good with one as without but I guess they didn't have the time so it was easier to remove it.

Tod and his friends are awesome. Amount of work and research put into their videos...

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.

@Bragi71

26 күн бұрын

Öhm… NO. firearms uswd in the 14th, 15th century where not effective against armor. Even jn the 16. century.

A knight in a well made suit of armor was generally impervious to arrows. During Battle of Legnica when the famous Mongol mounted archers faced off with the combined European forces in 1241 Mongols won a decisive victory, but were able to kill only 3 Knight Templars out of 88 that took part in the battle. On the other hand Templars lost over 500 men at arms, so lack of good, high quality 13th century armor meant Mongols could find enough weak spots to kill their targets (they were very good archers, generally trained to shoot an arrow through a small ring while passing by at full gallop). The small contingent of Polish knights whom died in this battle basically fell into an ambush and were defeated “one by one”, meaning the old fashioned way of dragging a knight down, pinning him to the ground by a group of men and stabbing through whatever opening you could find…