Even if the armor is penetrated it has done its job (more or less) by turning what could have been a fatal wound into a non-fatal or even a superficial wound. Infection aside, a lesser wound is preferable to a crossbow bolt stuck between the ribcage.

@Garbid

2 жыл бұрын

If lance get stock in plate it means that all kinetic energy is passed to a man. At least he will be thrown to the ground with good possibility to brake his bones or even spine. If lance will hit same way to the helmet neck will be broken for sure.

@LazyLifeIFreak

2 жыл бұрын

@@Garbid Its still preferable to have armor on than getting completely penetrated through the entire torso. Armor did what it was supposed to do.

@itsapittie

2 жыл бұрын

@@Garbid A violent fall from a horse is typically survivable. I've had a few myself. I did suffer broken bones a couple of times but I'd much prefer it to being a human-kabob which is rarely survivable.

@MrBottlecapBill

2 жыл бұрын

@@itsapittie This brings up another overlooked point. If you fall off your horse with armour on, are you better off? My theory is yes. The extra support and tensile strength of the metal will help prevent limbs and bones from breaking. The weight might make things tougher on your joints however but most importantly, if a horse steps on you in the confusion of the battle, I feel it would be better to have full armour on to prevent your ribs from being caved in by the weight of the horse or a kick to your skull from caving your skill in. If it steps on your arm you may still have a broken arm but "less" broken. :D As stated above......the idea is to live through the battle.

@itsapittie

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrBottlecapBill I haven't fallen from a horse in plate armor, but I think you would be less prone to severe injury in armor. I'm sure you'd fall harder but the fact that you had a "shell" and likely some padding should provide significant protection.

We have at least one source telling us that a lance penetrated a breastplate. "Some English men-at-arms sallied out to oppose them. In that number was a most valiant man-at-arms called Lancelot Pierre. Having attacked one of the English, he was struck by him with a lance which, piercing the plates of his armour, mortally wounded him in the belly. Whilst he was dying, he killed the Englishman." Enguerran Monstrelet. Sources and interpretations, Anne Curry p. 145.

@Robert399

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting. I'm not saying that's impossible (especially with a munitions-grade breastplate), but do we know it's referring to a breastplate at all? "The plates of his armour" could be a coat of plates or a brigandine, surely?

@eirikronaldfossheim

2 жыл бұрын

@@Robert399 I don't know. You would have to take a look at the original text. This is Anne Curry's translation.

@SonsOfLorgar

2 жыл бұрын

@@Robert399 could also be the thinner parts of an upper fold plate.

@Robert399

2 жыл бұрын

@@SonsOfLorgar Could be

@necroseus

2 жыл бұрын

"Piercing the plates of his armour mortally wounding him in the belly." To me, this seems like the lance struck him in his fauld, or he was wearing brigandine, as opposed to his solid, exclusively chest covering, breastplate.

Particularly for my fantasy-inclined friends: If a lance from horseback can pierce a suit of armour, then anything that can exert equal force to a charging horse and lance can do the same. Don't be afraid for magic or giant monsters to be able to pierce or deform plate. It's fine.

@Blokewood3

2 жыл бұрын

That's a good point. In some medieval legends, knights would wear spiked armor against certain monsters for extra protection, some examples being the Lambton Worm and the Dragon of Wantley. The Mordiford Wyvern features a similar idea.

@Primalintent

2 жыл бұрын

@@Blokewood3 exactly, much like how if you have enchantments that do specific things, that's a decent argument to dual wield enchanted swords sometimes. In general though, the point to learn is to not be too snooty about what can and cannot effect armour/weapons in fantasy. Yes, D&D gets the physics wrong often, but we should improve the physics, not assume that everything that applies on a historical battlefield will apply on a fantastical one.

@Hiraeth010

2 жыл бұрын

@@Primalintent For D&D you gotta kinda consider how drastically different the universe is and it’s physics, so for a fantasy world it really all depends on how the universe works in general.

@BoomerZ.artist

2 жыл бұрын

any large monster would make armour useless. Block a ogres swing and your arm behind the shield would be broken, maybe even your rotator cup. Any medium or larger size dragon would be like fighting a fast moving elephant, armour is useless. The more realistic you make your fantasy game, the less fun its going to be for the player.

@Hiraeth010

2 жыл бұрын

@@BoomerZ.artist I wouldn’t say that exactly, again I think it depends on the fantasy world you’re working with. In D&D it could be difficult, it would depend on how you view hit points. In a fantasy setting like game of thrones, I would agree with you.

Regarding the bent armor at 11:42 what also comes to my mind is Todd's Longbow vs armor video, where a good dead on hit with a hardenend steel arrow left a solid dent in the armor. I have no idea how many arrows at that time got that special treatment, but i can imagine that many a knight 's armor after a battle may have looked like a golfball.

@texasbeast239

2 жыл бұрын

Or like an automobile after a hailstorm.

"Let's talk about medieval armor... and deep penetration!" Wow, that escalated quickly

@AnotherDuck

2 жыл бұрын

I think it's about on level for Matt.

@figo3554

2 жыл бұрын

I thought the same lol

Hi Matt. As you know, people are always doing armor testing using modern high quality steel. Would you, perhaps collaborating with other channels, test armor pieces of inferior quality? For example, steel with impurities and steel that are too soft or too hard. I'd imagine at least some accounts of swords splitting helmets stem from the helmets being too brittle.

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

The funny thing is that for plate armour, people usually use material that is better than anything available in period, whereas for mail (chainmail) people tend to use cheaply produced Indian made mail, which is inferior to most period mail! So we end up with all sorts of skewed misconceptions.

@Silver-vy9ie

2 жыл бұрын

Also do remember , it’s not just the armor being lesser quality, it’s also the weapons used against it.

@poppymason-smith1051

2 жыл бұрын

@@F1ghteR41 I cant remember what mediaval youtuber I watched, possibly modern history tv, but the styles of mail certainly changed in how it was constructed in europe. from riverted and solid rings to all riveted, which may have made it weaker but mayeb was fancier looking? this is what the youtuber said Im just trying to repeat. but ye loads of variables even with period stuff

My first thought regarding the arrow wounds in the arms was that it was very unlikely that the archers were aiming just for the arms. This is speculation on my part, but my speculation is that he had many arrows shot at him but his breastplate, helm, etc. turned them. It was only in the arms, where the plate was thinner, or there were gaps, that they caused any wounds. In my mind, this goes to prove that on the whole, armor was very effective. I'd also suggest that maybe a genealogical investigation to find out if he survived, and if so, for how many years.

@SuperFunkmachine

2 жыл бұрын

Also there's a tendency for people to try and shield there face with there arms.

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

Yes that's very true.

@MrBottlecapBill

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperFunkmachine Agreed. It would be difficult to over rider that instinct regardless of armour type.

@ShummaAwilum

2 жыл бұрын

A likely purpose of using that many arrows is to hit anyone or any body part not protected by the best armor.

@MacDorsai

2 жыл бұрын

@@SuperFunkmachine Maybe, but you have to see the threat first before shielding your face and unless they were very close, right in front of you, you'd likely never see the arrows. Or, you had not yet gotten close enough for melee combat and you did see arrows coming at you. As Matt pointed out, the historical record doesn't contain those details.

That standard-bearer sounds like a badass. He probably would have been the target of a lot of archers and he ended up looking like a porcupine but he was fine because of his "good armor" lol

Most interesting. I just ordered that book. And...thank you for hanging your katana and wakazashi correctly with tsuka on the left and edge up. That saves me from a lot of sleepless nights...

Actually, a little bit early in the original text of this scene in "El Victorial" the armour is discribed as "Y las armas que traía eran una cota y un bacinete con camal, según que entonces se usaba, y unas canilleras y una adarga muy grande de barrera". The knight described wore a bacinet ("bacinete"), a coat of mail ("cota"), greaves ("canilleras") and a big "adarga" that was a muslim type of leather shield, so there's any plate armour. I hope to be helpfull.

So pleased with himself in that intro. Quite funny.

And of course, the shape and curves of the armour, the angle of attack, and the presence or absence of sharp or fancy bits that can catch the point all affect penetration.

I'm gonna say it again, your blued armor looks fantastic. Do you know anything about how often that was done to weapons, perchance? I like the idea of a blued sword hilt or poleaxe fittings, but I've never seen any artwork that indicates that was done.

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

Yes we know that armour and weapons were treated in various ways, including blueing, browning, russet, painting, gilding, applying silver, tinning etc.

@nevisysbryd7450

2 жыл бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria What is russet? And were any of these ever applied to the _blades_ of swords?

@gerardvila4685

2 жыл бұрын

@@nevisysbryd7450 Don't know about russet, but I inherited Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1844 edition) and in several poems a person draws a red sword (or was it brown?)... anyway there's a footnote saying something like "apparently our ancestors felt it was more honorable for their swords to be stained with the blood of their enemies".

@markfergerson2145

2 жыл бұрын

@@nevisysbryd7450 A quick Google for "russet steel finish" indicates that basically you let it "patina" (rust) evenly in a controlled environment to the color tone you like, then seal it with oil to prevent further rusting. (I hadn't heard of it before now either. This is why I love the comments sections of YT videos.)

I am absolutely fascinated by your collection. The helmet you are using in this video is beautiful. Thank you for the great content

One type of injury I find particularly intriguing in medieval art is that of helmets being split by swords. The Morgan or ‘Crusader’ bible has several examples. Both great helm and ‘norman’ style conical helms from memory. Obviously medieval manuscript illustrations aren’t the most reliable, rock solid evidence that this actually happened, but it’s as close to a contemporary source that we’ve got in many cases. Be interesting to see if anybody could actually achieve this result in a real life test. I’m erring on the side of it being artistic license myself, but could be worth a closer look.

The purpose is of armour is to get the wearer through the battle ALIVE. If at end of the battle you survived, be ecstatically happy, your armour worked. Medieval people were not stupid, if armour did not work, they would not have gone through the expense and encumbrance of having armour harness “tailor-made”. Infantrymen, of the time, would not have gone through trouble of carrying “ineffective” useless weapons. Now here is an observation: If an infantryman is trying to kill a knight, one would expect, that, the knight to have strenuously physical vigorous objections.

This is my favorite thing that you do. I don’t have time to find and read these things, so love when you bring them to us.

It seems to me that, after all the discussion, two things are probably true. 1. Armour must have worked well enough against the most common weapons to make it worth buying and wearing. 2. The most common weapons must have worked well enough against armour to make it worth continuing to use them So sometimes armour won out, sometimes the weapons. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the variabilities in armour design and metal quality that Matt was talking about (and probably also with things like metal quality of arrowheads).

I really love this topic. Thanks for all your content.

I think it goes both ways: if armor wasn't effective, they wouldn't have worn it; but equally, if the weapons of the period (including swords) weren't effective against this armor, they wouldn't have used them either. It's not an "all or nothing" situation. I think there's probably a decent analogy in WWII-era warships; battleships usually had armor rated to protect against their own main guns, but they were still able to damage and sink each other. It was not usually the main armor belt (analogous to the breastplate) that was penetrated, but rather the turrets and/or superstructure (analogous to the arms and head/neck).

@Pedro8k

2 жыл бұрын

True enough it is the old pun of a battle between protection and penitration until it becomes obsolete or to heavy to use or to expensive particularly after the 15th century when powder weapon were more available even up to the present day

Cheerful and concise presentation. Nice. Yours, Dan

Excellent video as always, Matt:)

In your video of a year ago 'what weapons did medieval knights use and why'.. @3:19 the artwork depicts knights with straps going around their necks and attached to their shields thereby being able to sling them out of the way when needing the use of their left hands

I love the gothic style of plate. The kit you have is exactly what I would want

@marekverescak2493

2 жыл бұрын

isnt that a milanese style?

@TheFlyguywill

2 жыл бұрын

@@marekverescak2493 I think it’s more gothic, like the helmet and the cuirass especially. I can see some elements of Milanese but it has more gothic influence I think

The standard bearer of Don Pero Niño was Gutierre Díaz de Gámez, the man who wrote the chronicle you are quoting. So it's a first hand account

Thanks for the book recommendation!

Matt, I am from Spain: Spear and Lance are both Lanza, so we don't know if your man from the 15th century was speared by his opponent of lanced. Would make sense if he fought a footman (who had a shield) though that he was hit with a spear.

Fantastic video!

Have you ever done the topic of Byzantine armour and weaponry? Pls consider doing it and maybe suggest some books. I'm very interested about the evolutions and traditions in this part of the world for weaponry and armoury

One hell of a way to start a video Lolz it's right up there with "what's up you beautiful bastards".

I think there is another factor to consider in the armor vs weapons question. As has been noted many times, armor is hot, heavy, and expensive. But it works. Missiles, particularly that pesky longbow, are great against unarmored targets, but often need the RPG equivalent of a "critical hit" against armor. IF, you bring longbows; THEN, the enemy must bring his uncomfortable and expensive full plate. And often leave his cavalry uncommitted. That right there is a massive effect, even if the longbows never get that shot to the open visor, eye slit, or knee. You have made the enemy spend a ton of money on full harness, reducing the armor on other troops, or outright not being able to afford as many troops. You have made him tired and dehydrated from slogging across the battlefield in said harness. You have made him spend even more money on supply trains to carry that armor and extra supplies to the battlefield. You have cut down on his scouting and pursuit capability because his cavalry cannot be committed without suffering heavy losses, particularly to those even more expensive cavalry horses. As long as a weapon winds up less expensive than the armor required to be "immune" to it, even with the training cost of the soldier added in, it will be "effective" on the battlefield, even if it does not directly cause casualties itself.

@JanoTuotanto

2 жыл бұрын

Where does this "leaving cavalry uncommitted" come from? The whole point of cavalry in set piece battle was to take out enemy archers ( and later artillery) There is not a single incident in war history where archers stopped a determined cavalry attack. In all the famous 100 year war "longbow victories" the archers were behind field fortifications. When archers did not have obstacles to protect themselves they were quickly overran.

@tiktakkat

2 жыл бұрын

@@JanoTuotanto If the archers won when behind field fortifications, then they did in fact stop determined cavalry attacks. And you would not want to commit your cavalry when they were in such positions unless you liked losing your cavalry. Yes, archers could be overrun. But then so could any troops. Archers could break cavalry charges in ways that other troops could not until pikes showed up. Of course, even pike squares could be broken - by dismounted cavalry. Either way, those expensive horses were not being used.

Hey Matt, do you know if there has ever been any FEA (finite element analysis) studies done of medieval armour? I know it has been used to study modern military armour penetration from various munitions. It would be cool to create a plate armour model and then simulate hitting it with various weapons at different points and angles. Anyways just a thought, and love the channel!

It was Robert Woosnam-Savage's commentary on an arming sword from the period of the Battle of Bosworth that converted me from katana fanboydom to European swords. It was the moment when I realized that European swords were elegant and fast also. I hadn't heard about this book, but I definitely want to check it out!

There's a village called Fillongley in Warwickshire, near Coventry. I don't know whether it's related to the guy mentioned who got shot in the arms during the first Battle of Saint Albans, but with the Earl of Warwick being the Yorkist commanders in the battle, it would make sense for Warwickshire men to have been in his army. I've only ever heard Fillongley pronounced with a short 'I' sound, as in 'Fish', but I don't know anyone that actually lives there.

Show us your fantastic kit, scholagladiatoria! We want to see it.

Well done for getting the spelling right on the thumbnail, the title could use some improvement ;) Great video as always!

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

For the algorithm...

@TheLegendMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria I guessed as much. Though that sounds like something the soldiers of KZread will cry as they go into battle against the Dailymotion army!

Miami Dade shootout with modern armour. The gaps were the ankles but took some time to realize it.

We get a video from Tod and Matt in the same day? It’s going to be a good day.

Great video! Other than Bob and Toby, do you have any other medieval arms and armour books to recommend?

I have to think that the variables helped lead to the use of weapons with options for striking like Halberds etc.

Just bought the book. So more poleaxe-vids...please!! Best mid-age weapon at all!

And despite the lance going through the armor, it only drew blood.

2:14 A treatise on take your son to work day!

6:52 missed opportunity to reference the glorious meme :c

Thank you! I purchased the book. It’s gonna be to research a fantasy tale I’m thinking of writing which is about a magical suit of armor that does not recall why it was summoned.

One common problem I see with most arrow tests against armor or shields is it isn't tested at 200 meters uphill from a lower elevation, then 100 meters from a higher elevation, etc. This is done because from a practical standpoint it is difficult to hit the armor from that distance, but obviously the velocity is going to vary with distance. Even if we assume an arc, there will still be air and wind resistance.

Shafts of arrow and spear can do more interior cutting damage if they are moved and hit. Maybe why it was preferable to break off the shaft once wounded by them

This is agian a differnt wiev point Matt battlafield - Shad skirmish/sparing. Both have good points.

the development of weapons and armour is totally interconnected.

More please.

@scholagladiatoria what is the source of the drawing at minutes 9:38 ?

Alright, tell me honestly. This is just an excuse to show off your plate harness, isn't it? I don't blame you. It's freaking sweet.

The new pic looks damn awesome

Sword getting toothed by use might argue for mace or other blunt weapons. Seems like a lot of people had substandard armor - in comparison to the standard bearer arrow magnet.

I have a little dent on one of my helmets I would not change it shows it has been used in battle the same with shining spotless armour you just make yourself a target as long as it is not rusty Iam ok with it remember quality varies and your life depends on it

You look awesome in the plate armor!

Dear Matt, your armour is looking really nice, so does your brigandine. I’d like to know, how is the dark tint of the armour achieved? Is it from a special steel treatment? I’m sure that you chose a feature for your armour that is period correct, wich makes it even more interesting how they achieved that look.

@4d4m22

2 жыл бұрын

It is blued like traditional gun parts. There are a lot of variations but it’s basically a form of chemical treatment that oxidises a thin layer of the outer surface of the steel. The pieces are dunked in a hot, caustic solution of metal salts for a specific time depending on the intended finish.

@3.k

2 жыл бұрын

@@4d4m22 Thank you!

@poppymason-smith1051

2 жыл бұрын

@@3.k you can get a basic blackening like on old pots and pans by quenching in oil, I've heard and seen pics of browned armour also but cant remember the source sadly

@3.k

2 жыл бұрын

@@poppymason-smith1051 Thanks!

I'd love to see, instead of the usual breastplate pinned to a post, a full harness of plate and mail on a dummy, secured in a field, and then give several archers free range on it for 10 minutes and see what the outcome is.... It would be a fascinating watch.

Everyone who examines this question always seems to focus on the very peak of armour technology and just how invulnerable it really was. Always asking how a full plate harness of the finest construction and best material would withstand this or that weapon. It always seems like arguing about just which stealth fighter you'd most like to be your primary weapon, when for most people in a war that's a rifle. Personally I'm a lot more curious about the not-best-of-the-best armours and how they would behave. Testing the hilted pollaxe on the brigandine is a good example, but if I had all the money in the world to throw at it there are other examples I'd like to see. Finding out how those lower grades of steel and iron perform, testing poorly hardened and non hardened plates, simply thinner plates, probably even more variables. I'm curious just how far down the nobility we have to get before Lord Poorboy is showing up with a cadre of men at arms who are basically wearing padded soup cans. Or perhaps, at what point does it protect against swords, daggers, and punches, but not arrows, lances, or axes?

Captain Context back at it again

8:12 Fillongley. There is a Castle there you know.

my two favorite things

6:28 ain't this a cute little face tho 😆 my man has a bored baby face.

0:44: Real image of an English knight at the Battle of Castillon, 1453

I saw a video on the Siege of Vienna in the 1500's. It was reported the Islamic light cavalry was rushing up to the European knights and shooting the knights in their open face masks, or if they raised their sword arm, in their less well protected armpits. Then they would ride away! So there were weaknesses in the armor that could be exploited by enemies.

your going to keep it short? :(

How often did archers smear their arrows in their stool, for poison arrows? I mean, you don't need to worry about buying expensive exotic poisons when your body already produces free poison.

@kylewilliams8114

2 жыл бұрын

Fairly often. Some would urinate on the heads of the arrows as well. I'm sure at least a few of "He was wounded in the battle and succumbed to his wounds later" were infections going septic.

Why not to make test with lance and plate armor?

Nice

Someone needs to sacrifice their full plate suite to do more testing. It could make for some great weathering. 😅

Would lubricating the head and shaft have aided with penetration?

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

Tod has shown that indeed his shaft does get deeper that way.

Armour was being imported in vast amounts from Italy and Germany in the 13th and 14th century and although they carried their point of origin proof marks pieces were retested, the nascent English armour industry was also beginning thrive and all needed a proofmark. In 1365 the armourers of London are in full work, but the results are not satisfactory. The King (Edward III) insists on proof or trade marks. “Certa signa sua super omnibus operationibus suis ponant.” Rymer, III, 772. The harness was tested by sword, lance and arrow. I believe the answer is found in the Henri Gallice 1515 L’art de Archerie where in Chapter 5 on The Shaft for arrows is found. ....”Many arrows are made of ash, but they are only fit for proving armour. They should be large at the point and reduced at the feathers so as to stand the jar on impact.” From page 62 “The armourer and his craft” on armour proofing. 1416. Compt de Gilet Baudry, Arch. Mun. Orleans. “Flêches à arc empannées a cire et ferres de fers d’espreuve.” Here the “feathering” of the arrow with copper is specified, for it was this metal wing which, acting like the propeller of a boat, caused the arrow to revolve with increased velocity. These arrows of proof cost double the price of ordinary arrows, for we have entries of such projectiles in the year 1419 costing 8s. the dozen, while the ordinary quality cost but 4s. the dozen. Basically they were doing the arrow vs armour bit 650 years ago.......armour always won even to the point of proof testing with pistols. Armour was discarded not because pistols shot holes in them on the battlefield but because armor just become to heavy to wear to be shotproof....the critical weight of the harness seems to be about 42kg.

I doubt that the arrows went through the plates. The gaps are far more likely. You are right though. We simply do not know. When we see the medieval artwork we often see people cutting right through helmets and plate armor with swords. I am pretty sure that this is just a heroic portrayal that clearly shows one guy killed the other. However, how often have we thought that medieval art was simply fanciful or symbolic and then found out that it was actually true? Take the Mordhau as an example here. It almost makes you wonder if there are really killer rabbits and snails out there! = @ O Oink! = @ )

Ok, so why were arm plates thin? Why not make front of arm plate, in case of stronger users, of thicker steel? Wouldn't wounded arm disarm you making you as good as dead/captured?

@texasbeast239

2 жыл бұрын

The arms must be flexible and mobile for thousands of contractions during a battle, so arm armor weight has to be kept to a bearable level. All armor is a compromise, but especially in the arms, and legs as well for non-mounted troops.

@MazNator

2 жыл бұрын

good luck sparring bro

I'm making my own peasant plate armor, I just bought 1 mm stainless steel and cut shapes with scissors and then bending it, it works fine against two handed (1400g) sword strikes without gambeson, so I imagine people would do similar things, it's not only material or skill of craftsman, but also tools. If I'd have torch or something I could've heaten breastplate and hammer shape, so I could use perhaps 1.2 or 1.4mm steel, but I don't have many useful tools for that so I'm doing 1mm thick breastplate. I'm not buying all that "most plate armor was awesome" and "iron/steel was extremily expensive" while you could buy cheap sword in 15 centuary for a day's wage. That means you could buy enough metal to cut it into rectangles and make your own brigandine for a few day's wage, and even today while rconomics is better, I still have to craft my own armor because I don't have money to just buy one. I think jack chains is the prime example, but I'm sure even in late period, most plate armors would've been reused thin metal and stuff. After breastplate and helmet, I'm going to use 0.7mm steel for limb armor beause it's much easier to cut and work with. Or maybe even Just make skull cap and Greathelm above it with 0.7mm steel.

This video needs #shorts, by Matts standards =)

I have a choice, Get shot at with out armour. Or Get shot at with armour. I think I will buy the best armour I can afford.

first video after subbing and youre talking about deep penetration!

At one point, Wikipedia reported the English had 7,000 effective archers at Agincourt. Nobody ever reports on how many arrows each archer had. But if each archer had ONLY three dozen arrows they could have loosed 252,000 arrows at the French knights! (And in about three minutes too!) If only 10% caused an injury they could have caused 25,200 injuries! It was reported the French army was between 20,000 and 30,000! So the English archers could have at least injured most of the French warriors! BTW: Tod of Tod's Workshop did tests to demonstrate arrows from a war bows were not capable of penetrating most armored helmets and cuirass, which were specifically designed to deflect arrows.

@internetsurferxxx2678

2 жыл бұрын

if and maybe perhaps could of would of possibly

You should do a fully armored video with Lloyd of Lindybeige, if his set is complete now.

Long bows against armour. Arrows split and shatter after striking armour - a constant barrage would have arrow heads richocheting around, long splinters of arrow shafts going everywhere. Can't raise the visor to have a look. Terror and confusion.

Penetration! One of my pet peeves is when people do armour penetration tests and they act like they succeeded when there's less than half an inch of the weapon poking out the other side. That means the armour did its job.

@scholagladiatoria

2 жыл бұрын

Yes and no. It depends how we define success - half an inch of point still might have some detrimental effect (in your shin or forearm for example), and if something is going half an inch through steel plate, then it's going to be quite concerning to the areas not cover by plate. The problem is that the same weapon can penetrate completely through a thin plate of iron, or not at all through a thicker plate of carbon steel, and both those extremes were targets that the said weapon might encounter on a 15th century battlefield.

Feel Free to pop up as many of those shots of you in your swank harness as you want! =)

Serbian Sword/Spada Schiavonesca kzread.info/dash/bejne/gpiYlLaiedHYh7Q.html

I would still like to see an accurate simulation of a massed archer attack of the 15th century. At Agincourt, in 1415, there were about 5000 archers. Each archer could fire 10 arrows per minute. Each arrow, at about 100-150 feet had a striking power of 80 lbs of force. What does the math tell us? As the French vanguard of 4500 knights came within range they were taking 833 arrows per second straight into them on a flat tragectory. This amounted to a cloud of flying iron that had a striking weight of 33 tons of force per second. Even if you assume 1/2 the arrows missed their target then each French man-at-arms would be hit by 7 pounds of metal per second for 15 to 20 minutes. Imagine 4 machine guns firing 250 rounds per second of enfilade fire at you. No matter how good your harness is, statistics would not be in your favor with that amount of arrow fire.

@nowthenzen

2 жыл бұрын

yup and if you go down the youtube rabbit hole you discover the phenomenon of arrow shaft shrapnel which is probably a reason for a while some French knights wore padded anti arrow shaft shrapnel armour outside their metal suits.

@JustGrowingUp84

2 жыл бұрын

Do you think all the French men-at-arms travelled in a straight line, so that all of them would get hit by arrows? It seems far more likely that they travelled in a relatively tight group, and only the people in the front and on the sides would get hit. Obviously, as those fell due to arrows, or perhaps slowed down, battered by said arrows, the ones next to them would get hit, etc. And of course their formation would be somewhat ragged, due to arrows, but also walking through mud. Also, remember that plenty managed to reach the English line, and even push it back a little. Furthermore, eventually the English king Henry V had so many prisoners that he ordered his men to kill them, concerned that during the next French attack, said prisoners would rebel and the English would risk getting caught between two fronts. So in that case, despite your math, statistics were in their favor? To paraphrase Matt: "there are a shitload of variables, and usually we don't know most of them". Your accurate simulation of massed archer fire would require accurate simulation of all the various types of armor used, AND of how said arrows would interact with said armors. I suspect you might need a super-computer to accurately simulate something on the scale of the Battle of Agincourt.

@GreatistheWorld

2 жыл бұрын

And it would be Fucking loud

to put it in short: no armour is perfect.

If armour would be impervious, all warriors would have to resort to wrestling and tearing the armour off and then proceeding to incapacitate or finish off the opponent. If that had happened, we would be able to read and hear all about it. Likewise, if armour never helped anyone, if would have been far more economical to make more weapons out of the same resources and do the conquering with bigger armies. Armour helps, but does not solve everything.

Chinese steel, it is a modern plague, normally you expect the handle of your spade to break first but the other day it was the blade of my spade that broke! I dunno, I expect there was the budget version of armour back in the day, looks good and lots of bling, but give it the rondel dagger and Bob is no longer your uncle, he has deceased, shuffled off his mortals.

'The variables are so broaaaaaad' -13:03

9:37 fella on the extreme left seems to be wearing shorts and bare feet!

The Medieval knights kryptonite, forget swords and armour. Death by frog! The intriguing death of Sir Marmaduke Constable 1455 - 1518. Apparently, Sir Marmaduke Constable, a hardened veteran at c. 60 years old, was sat in his garden overlooking the sea when he picked up a glass of water and drank from it. Unbeknownst to Sir Marmaduke, the glass of water contained a frog, which he drank. According to legend, the frog ate away at his heart until he (Sir Marmaduke) eventually died. If he did swallow a frog a more likely cause of death would have been Sir Marmaduke choking on said frog but either way, the swallowing of the frog ultimately proved one battle too many! Sadly, the fate of the frog has not been recorded by history.

Makes me want to paly a total war game so baadly!

This stuff is why I so hate those History Channel shows that "test" medieval armor by having someone with a modern-made steel sword, axe, or arrowhead hit a single layer of butted (not riveted) mail with no cloth over or under it, up against a board or log with no give at all. Oooh, you penetrated it! Obviously mail was nearly worthless against a falchion (or whatever)! What a joke.

FtA!

Furthermore: I once looked it up; modern Special forces (Army Rangers, Green Berets & Navy Seals) advance across a battle field at about 3 minutes per 100 yards. I can't imagine armored knights and men at arms advancing faster, especially while trying to maintain battle lines. Thus, archers would have at least 3 minutes to loosen 3 dozen arrows at the advancing enemy! Thoughts of them shooting at high arcs at targets 300 yards away is Hollywood nonsense. It would be a waste of arrows. I bet most arrows were loosed at almost flat trajectories at less than 100 yards. (What's maximum effective pistol range: maybe 60 yards?) I shot a 40lb hunting bow when I was young. My maximum range with target arrows was about 110 or 120 yards. From goal post to goal post on an (American) football practice field. My effective range was more like 20 or 40 yards. (I was also very nearsighted.) I saw a video a few years ago, where an archer was testing shooting at human bust sculptures made of ballistics gel at 20, 40, 60 and 100 yards. He was using a 40 pound hunting bow and broad head arrows. He had trouble with wind blowing his arrows away at 100 yards, but did manage to get hits. The arrows penetrated the ballistics gel most at 20 & 40 yards and less at 60 & 100 yards. (Which is what you would expect. Arrows wobble in flight, which dissipates energy.)

@internetsurferxxx2678

2 жыл бұрын

context please

@Gustav_Kuriga

2 жыл бұрын

War bows have much higher draw weights. The low end of estimates for English longbows is 80-90 lbs. And that's the low end. Higher estimates of 150-160 lbs draw weights with 30 cm draw length are also not uncommon. So the low end is at least double the draw weight, with quadruple it of your hunting bow not being out of the picture..

@MrDelferi123

2 жыл бұрын

Modern special forces advance by dashing from cover to cover, with one man providing covering fire while another advances. This is totally different (and much slower) than medieval formations moving on an open battlefield. Medieval cavalry charge or even a foot charge would cover 100 yards much quicker than that 3 minutes (possible exception being very difficult terrain).

People want absolutes. Too bad. Life is all about the dice rolls.

If you don't retake your wedding photos in that armor, Matt, something is wrong with you

Just a fun question, is Iron Man armor practical for medieval combat (armor only, without the sci-fi stuff)?

I bet it sucked if someone dented your armor into your flesh and you had to continue to fight in that suit.

Now I'm waiting for accounts of low quality armor. Are depictions of swords cutting through metal armor pure fantasy, or can it be that they show high quality steel cutting through low quality, thin iron etc. (possibly exaggerated in art, but still depicting a real threat to less wealthy combatants)

@Gustav_Kuriga

2 жыл бұрын

You'd have to hit an edge, or have brittler than normal armor. The former wouldn't do you any good and even if you did cut it somehow without being stopped by some other piece of the armor beyond where you cut, would likely leave you with a stuck blade. The latter would be an open question of whether you are cutting or smashing the armor, as something brittle enough to break on impact like that would likely shatter rather than be cleanly cut. Otherwise, armor spreads out the impact of a sword to the point where it becomes more of a bashing weapon than a cutting one.