I should make a playlist of KZread videos with "Reponse to Lindybeige" in the titles.

@KorKhan89

7 жыл бұрын

Noah Weisbrod True, but it's actually a good thing. Responding to Lloyd is what motivated Matt Easton to start making his videos about swordsmanship.

@Snagabott

7 жыл бұрын

Helps Lindy grow though; which is nice, considering it's his job to make YT vids.

@danielbartleson5746

7 жыл бұрын

Like the "Spandau"...

@axebattler6604

7 жыл бұрын

lindybeige is kind of terrible when it comes to this hema stuff. all he does is make guesses rather than base his opinions on historical records.

@neilwilson5785

7 жыл бұрын

Lloyd has stated on many occasions that he likes to speculate, and is happy with that speculation being challenged. The 'Spandau' vid is a prime example. TBH, I think he was being a bit playful that time. Anyway, I've looked at Greaves, and now mail coifs. Onwards to helmet liners next....

Great analysis! I do enjoy Lloyd's videos. However, he does occasionally jump to conclusions without adequate background knowledge or comprehensive research, trusting in his own assumptions rather than expert opinion. While he raises many interesting points, I tend to take the things he says with a grain of salt.

@GermanSwordMaster

7 жыл бұрын

^ that exactly

@Tananjoh

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised he didn't consider the possibility of wearing cervellieres under the coifs since that is mentioned in several arms and armour books and the depictions of the cervellieres in the Morgan bible.

@Bohewulf

7 жыл бұрын

uh? As far as I see he did mention the wearing of helmets under the coif several times.

@jwadaow

7 жыл бұрын

I don't see why that's necessary unless you're suggesting he's asserts his opinions as fact.

@TheOldBlackShuckyDog

4 жыл бұрын

KorKhan89 I think it’s fine tbh. He always seems to make it clear that it’s just his opinion, if you choose to take it without a pinch of salt, then that’s your problem. But yeah, glad there’s someone clearing it up too

My favorite depiction of David and Goliath is the one with Goliath in a fully enclosed great helm. I believe pissing into the wind would be a realistic metaphor for the outcome of David's efforts.

I always feel like i should take notes when i watch your videos. I always have that feeling that in the end you will ask questions to make sure we have been learning :)

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

There will be a quiz at the end of all future videos :)

@brandy1999

7 жыл бұрын

Thats an excellent idea

@blasty137

6 жыл бұрын

@Reddokk Fheg: I actually did that! He provides so much useful information that it's impossible to remember even half of it so I often found myself re-watching videos to find a specific piece of information. Eventually I got tired of it so I started taking notes and it's actually saving me a lot of time.

I'm a massive Lindybeige fan...but your explanations made more sense. A well deserved like sir.

Thank you for your presentations. I always look forward to your videos.

I thought this was an articulate response video. I especially appreciate your listing of references from various sources and displaying them on screen. All together it seems well researched. Thank you sir.

Thank you for this video! It did seem a bit fishy that Lindy concluded that it couldn't happen, just because he rationally couldn't come to an understanding of what he was seeing given the information he had. When he said he only really saw one surviving mail coif in a museum, it also sent off some alarms to me. Thanks a lot for the video, Knyght, really informative as always!

Thanks for making these videos! You inspired me to take a much deeper interest in history, which in the last six months (since I started watching your videos) has blossomed into a real passion.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

That's wonderful! I hope your studies bring you a lot of enjoyment!

I just found your channel and damn dude this content is great. You've earned a sub.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir, welcome to the channel!

I'd just like to add something from the perspective of an artist looking at another artists work. The grain changes in the coifs in the depictions are all very deliberate. Even though its extremely simplified it was obviously common enough for the artist to think it important to show it in his work and the care taken to the overall look of the soldiers is plain to see. Lindy implying that the artist didn't know what he was drawing just comes off as crap logic to me.

@guitarlover1204

7 жыл бұрын

from the perspective of an artist, looking at an artist's comment on an artist's work: there's always the chance that they just didnt have "reference" per say, and got it wrong. if i ask a modern artist, to draw a modern soldier's kit, without any reference, chances are he will get a lot of things wrong, probably still functional, but not the real thing.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

+guitarlover1204 Your point is valid, but the issue in this case is not limited to a single artistic work. The same grain change is featured in artwork from different sources, in different geographical regions over the course of time that these objects were in use. It becomes more likely that the detail we see is intentional rather than a lot of independent coincidental mistakes when we consider all of the sources.

@guitarlover1204

7 жыл бұрын

of course, i just wanted to point out that how much effort did one artist put into a drawing is not an optimal way of determining the accuracy of said drawing. now in this case theres a very good chance that it's accurate, since it's both a plausible and common representation. Then we have illustrations of arming swords going straight through the peak of what i assume is a nasal helm (please correct me if im wrong) manuscriptminiatures.com/4673/7955/ which yeah, it's intentional, detailed, and probably recurrent, but bt theres very little chance of it happening. so yeah, TL;DR : i agree that the depiction is accurate, but i don't think that the ammount of care put into it by one artist should determine how accurate it is.

@pauljames9738

6 жыл бұрын

But the artists were drawing what they saw -- contemporary gear. Their audience may have been illiterate, but they were well aware of what they and their neighbors were wearing, and would have certainly have been quick to point out any errors. Modern artist representations of modern military kit will hear, rapidly and definitely, any errors they have committed (read any comment section on sites dealing with such). Any old gaffer, a long-retired veteran of Crecy, for example, would have loudly scorned any misrepresentation of what the "REAL sojers" took to battle.

Always the Lindy.

This would also explain why everybody looks uniform in art when wearing coifs, despite coifs not exactly creating a terribly similar appearance depending on the length and style of your hair.

Great video as always

I was just thinking about this yesterday after watching your other coif video.

Nice beard, an great information

@TheBaconWizard

7 жыл бұрын

Dante Reynoso glad you got your priorities right lol

I find your interpretations much more convincing than Lindybeige's

very reasonable and informative. thx.

Perfect work, as usual. How much time do you consume making a quality video like this? (Including searching, researching, preparation, video cuting, etc.)

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks. They do take a lot of prep time, that's probably the biggest reason why my videos are so infrequent... The actual filming of the video is probably the fastest part of the entire process :)

@jeddylajos

7 жыл бұрын

I was curious about some numbers. :) I noticed your videos barely contain any cuts, which indicates you`re very comfortable and knowledgable in these topics. Also, I (and maybe your viewers in general) don`t mind the infrecuency at all. It isn`t a bad thing to wait for something that has quality (this applies to many things in life also). In this sense the waiting part creates some value in itself.

An excellent and convincing response

they also used hardened leather skull caps which under chain is almost same as iron

Godd explanation - thanks a lot for sharing!

Good to see a real historian cover this. Brilliant video. I should really join the patreon campaign.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much, but I'm not a *real* historian, just an enthusiast... :)

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

Knyght Errant Every considered getting a degree?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

My degree is in an engineering field. I've never considered getting a degree in history.

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

Knyght Errant Regardless, I'm happy for an engineer's mind to be taken to the history. Have you considered making videos related to the protective aspects of armours? There are a number of armour tests on youtube which I'd find your opinion on very interesting.

In defence of the Morgan Bible illustrators, they did not have any reference point of how clothing and armour looked back in ancient times.

Thanks I was a bit confused by lindy explanation. This seems more sound.

I love your videos; I would love that somebody with the same accuracy as yours would create a similar channel to "teach" other cultures like japanese, chinese, islamic... I'm really into Asian History and Art; maybe one day: but this channel must be the format and the model for the others "armor historian" channels in the future. Thank You!

@Great89100

7 жыл бұрын

Luca Nic try metatron dear friend!

Excellent video Ian, my thoughts exactly when watching the lindybeige one on coifs. While I find his channel greatly enjoyable I often feel his videos on arms and armor are based on conjecture rather than scholarship. His recent video on halberds being no exception.

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

LindyBeige is very strongly opinionated, and only trustworthy when talking about certain costuming. Sadly, he talks about many things he has no place in discussing, including the experience of Holocaust victims.

@LutzDerLurch

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think that was his angle at all. I belief his main point was, that people tend to simplify things and remember the the holocaust as the killing of the jews. Wheras in reality not only jews but also large numbers of other people as well were murderedn and tortured by the nazis. I.e. people with disabilities, homsexuals etc. He did not argue that far less jews were murdered, he pointed out, that the nazis slauhtered not only jews but other people as well, so the total 12 million or so people the nazis brutally murdered were not all jews. That comment sections on youtube and elsewhere are and have always been sesspits of hatred, is nothing we can really blame on him, can we?

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

LutzDerLurch Are you even listening to yourself? Or rather, are you listening to him? Look over all his points which I have reiterated. It is the view of a holocaust denier, regardless of why he is uttering that view. And no, there are many comments sections devoid of neo NAZIs, where they feel unwelcome. But if you say that no extermination camps existed, and all the people talking about those camps are liars, then yes, you make other holocaust deniers feel entirely welcome. A few years ago, if someone had denied the existence of the death camps, they would've been laughed at and lose support for their disturbing views. Now, they get support for bearing such.

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

LutzDerLurch *Facepalm* Watch the video, before you defend it.

@LutzDerLurch

7 жыл бұрын

Hans Smirnov I watched it a while ago. And if LindyBeige denied the existence of extermination camps, it should be absolutely NO problem whatsoever for you to provide a time code when he is doing so.

Awesome videos! Will you ever do a similar video or set of videos on aketons/gambesons do you think?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I do have a video planned on the basic terminology, since a lot of the terms like aketon, gambeson, pourpoint, etc... get confused and often used incorrectly.

...TY.🇬🇧

Damn, took youtube 6 years to recomend me this video. I watched lindybeiges original video when it came out and was really dissapointed with his conclusion. This video was a nice take on the issue.

What I like about Game of thrones is that they do ALOT of correct things or innovative styles but fairly correct forms ie the Lannister Army, but for drama shock I can't take high skilled knights or people with money who DON'T WEAR MAIL COIFS or neck throat protection and then you get amazing kills with stabs in the back of the head/neck. I just go WTF!?! The Sword of the Morning, Kings Guard Arthur Dayne fought with no chain mail coif or the earlier season brass/gold plated scales hung from the back of the Helm as Meryn Trant wore. Boom gets taken out with a knife to the back of the neck?!

You should do a video on thickness of plate armor. Both the most common thicknesses and how different parts of a suit compare to each other, i.e. how does the thickness of the shin armor compare to the back of the head.

"Cervelle" is "cerebrum"; i.e. the brain. "Cervellière" etymologically signifies "female thing relevant to the cerebrum". It basically means "skullcap", but without specifying the "cap" part, nor the "skull" part. More like "brainthing". It is a thing that protects your brain.

Thank you for your video. Concerning your theory regarding medieval depictions of biblical events being portrayed with contemporary themes for the sake of the unlearned masses, do you know of any primary sources that support your conclusions?

Not quite on the topic, but are pictures like the one at 1:22 realistic in the depiction of swords (or other weapons) penetrating the helmet and the skull to that extent?

@lordhermis8718

6 жыл бұрын

Petra Pajtak i am no expert at this and i am a year too late, but usually. The people who made art like this had never seen battle and didnt know how it worked out. So its probably not accurate. But other weapons like axes could get in a helmet if with a good swing.

@TemenosL

5 жыл бұрын

Very generally speaking, no. I don't think it is accurate. The ability for a well-shaped hunk of metal, even relatively thin, to resist penetration by a one-handed sword, especially powered by the human body alone, is pretty damn fantastic. There have been arguments that 'poorer quality metal was used', which I disagree with, and also that what we see is 'biblical exaggeration', which is.. plausible. I think it likely the artists were simply gunning for a more evocative depiction, and/or possibly didn't know how these tools interacted in-battle. There's reasoning behind the stance; you would not craft or utilize a helmet if it were easily penetrated by one well-thrown swing. It would serve precious little purpose. Even bronze, by all means a 'softer' metal, has been used in helmetry for a centuries in the ancient world, often coming up against iron and steel weaponry. It was still used as hard armor while early steel/iron weaponry were in production. This speaks to its' effectiveness. I also own a bronze helmet, and have struck it hard with a moderately sharp, overly-heavy 'falcata'-designed saber. I did so with it unrealistically planted right against the floor with very little movement. It left an indentation maybe a cm or under a cm in depth, but it only scratched the surface. Generally speaking, helmets work. Wouldn't trust it against a two-handed polearm or even a good one-handed spike, but against a one-handed sword? Yes, absolutely.

I'm wondering if the cervelliere worn over mail or under it depends on how (or if) it's lined. Were they all padded? If it's padded I'd want to wear cervelliere with mail on top for a good fit... If it wasn't padded I'd probably wear an arming cap, then mail, then cervelliere on top.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

The two surviving cervellieres have holes around the lower perimeter for a sewn-in integral liner, so in those particular cases I think they were intended to be right on the head, no additional arming cap necessary.

@rchave

7 жыл бұрын

That makes sense, was just wondering about the ones shown over mail. All speculation though I guess.

I can't believe I have not encountered the interpretation that mail would have nevet been used as the only form of head protection in these depictions. However, what do you believe would have been the advantage to layering maille with solid protection either with a helm over or under the maille? Why did they not drape the maille instead?

Just for clarification on the wearing of the "Cervelliere", the mail coif would be worn over the top without any other form of padding around the neck?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

There are a lot of representations of padded collars in the Morgan Bible. Whether they were universal or not is unknown.

seeing as how arms and armor were usually owned by the individual during this time period, wouldn't the easiest explanation be that the owner is too poor to wear additional protection?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Throughout history, and through different cultures, as armor develops we almost always see the same body parts being prioritized over others in the same order when simply armoring the whole body isn't an option. The first thing that is protected on a person is their head. The next most important thing is the torso. The limbs are the last priority. If a person could afford a full harness, they likely wouldn't skip protecting their head. It's really the only place on the body that can result in immediate incapacitation or death when struck.

Yes, I was going to get to what I would call a 'secret' (I tend to use English terms, since that's the language I speak) in another video, but there are still problems with the pictures. Nice to hear you use the term 'grain'! I made that up because I didn't know a word for it. I wasn't concluding that the images in the Morgan Bible were inaccurate and to be dismissed, but I was making the point that the costumes were made up, albeit clearly based on contemporary wear, and so the artists had licence to get inventive. To understand how to interpret a piece of art, you have to know why it was made. This is not a treatise on how to wear armour, it is a series of Bible stories. If I thought it was rubbish, I wouldn't have spent the whole video referring to it, and trying to work out how I could get my coif to look more like the ones shown. Thanks for the link!

@nathanbrown8680

7 жыл бұрын

One of the things that artists seem to be making up is that mail has visible grain at all. On reproductions and survivals the grain just isn't apparent except close up.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Hi Lloyd, thanks for taking the time to watch the video, I appreciate it. Like I said in the beginning of the video, I mean no ill will, so I hope you didn't take it that way. Your channel was part of the reason I decided to make videos in the first place, so thanks for doing what you do. If you do end up getting a secret helm, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it interacts with the coif being worn over top. I have no personal experience with that configuration, and it would be cool to hear some firsthand analysis of how it wears. If you do get the chance, check out the blog post in the description, it might give you some more ideas on how to tackle yours.

@gussie88bunny

7 жыл бұрын

Dude, you are such a gentleman. Absolutely appreciate your manners and good grace, in a time when so many people are ugly spiteful on social media. Cheers.

@TheGooddog3

7 жыл бұрын

Great vids, both you guys. Love your stuff. But I thought that Lindy was pretty much saying what you said about the David/Goliath thing. Guess I'll have to re-watch that one.... for the 4th time! Like I said, I love your stuff guys!

@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin

7 жыл бұрын

Lack of photography back in the day makes me think many artists were obsessed with accurate depictions of things. Though mirrors needed to be invented before they could incorporate perspective.

Hi Ian, I am just wondering why they wore the cervellier under the coif? What was the purpose? Was it better then wear the coif underneath the cervelliere? Thanks in advance

@KnyghtErrant

5 жыл бұрын

Both configurations are documented. The advantage to having the coif as the outermost layer is that you get to remove it without having to take off the primary head defense. The fact of the matter is that the thing a soldier does most in their armor is stand around waiting to fight, train or march. Actually being in mortal danger takes up a tiny fraction of their time. The ability to doff one's coif while still retaining a significant amount of protection should not be underestimated. The cervelliere worn on the outside probably presents a better deflective surface to a weapon. Mail is much less likely to glance or shed a blade, so I suppose some found one preferable to the other. We can only guess their reasons unfortunately. We know both configurations were done, but figuring out _why_ is always the hardest part!

@janstanek5544

5 жыл бұрын

@@KnyghtErrant thank you very much!

You linked to a blog complètement en français... M. LaSpina, le parlez-vous?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I cannot read French... that's where Google Chrome comes in handy... :)

Which way do you think is generally better to wear the coif; Over the cervelliere or under? I am leaning towards over. Because it seems like when hit with a weapon the mail would shift a bit, changing the angle of an edge or tip and increasing the chance of a weapon glancing or at least not biting. Also while round rings seem superior for comfort. Which do you think (if either) is superior overall; Round or flat (or soem other type)?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I've never had the opportunity to wear a coif with a cervelliere so I can't really speak from personal experience. I'd love to try some time and see how it behaves. You may be on to something in that the mail sliding over the helm could encourage shedding the weapon. The cervelliere is also known as the 'secret helm' and most people associate that with it being worn under a great helm, but I don't see why that can't refer to the common practice of wearing it under a coif as well. Flat ring mail does offer the advantage of allowing a denser weave of mail for a given mass of ring since more surface area is exposed and presented to a potential threat. It also resists opening a lot more than a round ring.

@The1Helleri

7 жыл бұрын

Do you have a metal bowl that will fit on your head?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Cervellieres are deceptively complex. Surviving cervellieres are shaped very well to the anatomy of the skull, they're not just circular hemispheres of iron, so you could only get so far with a bowl. But no, I don't have a metal bowl that would fit me close enough to give any sort of useful insight.

@The1Helleri

7 жыл бұрын

So I found a patch of riveted flat ring mail I still have from when I messed around making the stuff and got out a spoon (to sit under it. Hit it with a long handled knife a few times. Seems to shift around a good amount with cuts/chops. And does change the edge alignment. Doesn't seem to effect thrusts unless it hits a link. I know it isn't an elegant experiment. But it looks like what I was thinking about how it would behave is at least half right.

But why would you wear mail over your helmet instead of under it?

@MartinGreywolf

7 жыл бұрын

Because this way, you can take it off to eat, turn your head comfortably and so on. You couldn't do that with helmet on top without taking off the helmet, which is a hassle if you need to keep doing things with your hands. Disadvantage is that it protects slightly less than mail-under-helmet.

@andrewsuryali8540

7 жыл бұрын

In the case of a cervelliere, because it was meant to be worn directly over the head. The vast majority of surviving examples have attachment holes all around like the two examples in 2:52 in the video, which means that cervellieres were meant to have a padding layer sewn into it. It's possible that some cervellieres were also sewn directly onto an arming cap, so that the arming cap itself becomes the means to wear the cervelliere.

@REDN0AK

7 жыл бұрын

i would guess, because if the helmet would be over the mail u will be presented with two major problems: 1. since the helmet would be further away from the head, its mass would drag more while moving, resulting in a more cumbersome and comfortless way to move your head 2. it wouldnt be as secured and firmly worn, since it needs to be strapped onto the mail (as opposed when firmly locked under the mail)

@rchave

7 жыл бұрын

As shown in the video, it seems to be worn both ways which would imply it's personal preference, maybe down to slight differences in how they're made- whether it's a fixed liner, a suspended liner, or a seperate coif. I wouldn't wear a fixed/suspended liner over mail, it would be wobbly and uncomfortable, but an arming coif, then mail, then cervelliere on top makes sense.

@Tyrhor

7 жыл бұрын

My idea is that then you can use a leather helmet

Politics is another likely reason why the biblical characters are portrayed in Medieval armor; at the time, the Franks considered themselves the legitimate heirs of Rome (and thus Christendom), so the imagery is likely intended to portray continuity between the ancient Israelites and Christian Europeans.

was there a huge amount of change in mail though out history?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I guess it depends on how you define huge. We do see shifts in style and more advanced tailoring over time, different ring sizes and shapes (flattened vs round) a preference for fully riveted vs. alternating riveted and solid rings, changes in rivet types etc...

Nice video! It brings one question to mind, however. How comes a layer of padding and a layer of mail are generally accepted as sufficient protection for the entire body but it is invariably assumed that it won't be enough to protect the head? Maybe it was considered enough, without need of helm or cervelliere? Also, since you do mention that, how do you figure they wore pot-shaped helmets under the coif, assuming the latter was integral to the hauberk? Seems impossible to fit the helmet under the coif if it is one with the hauberk, at least to me. I struggle to imagine how you'd put it on. Same goes for coifs having a circular shape around the face; assuming they are integral to the hauberk, how would they be pulled off? I am assuming both pot-helms under coifs and circular-shaped coifs were early experiments and weren't removable, so to speak, like the coifs with ventail more commonly seen in sources, that can be opened and lowered over the shoulders for comfort. I'm guessing they'd put on a gambeson, a padded cap, a cervelliere or pot-helmet, don the hauberk and be more or less stuck with the coif on their heads. This, however, would raise another question: why wear the harder defense under the flexible one? I suppose, short of asking men-at-arms of the period, we're stuck with speculation.

@MRKapcer13

7 жыл бұрын

The body isn't as vital as the head, is what I would say about the first one. When you receive a strike to the body with a sword, it is unlikely that you will be instantly taken out of action, and remember that being taken out is more important to your opponent in a fight than being killed. If you get struck to the head, however, you can suffer a concussion, you can be knocked out instantly, there is a plethora of things that can happen to take you out almost immediately, especially when percussive weapons get involved. It's also why, biologically, the skull is probably the most protective part of the body. As for the second question, I take it that by pot-shaped helmets you mean the flat/cone shaped ones, not the form-fitting ones Ian was talking about. In that sense, remember that the armour was always tailored to the wearer, since it was custom-made - no mass production back then. I imagine the process you guessed is more or less correct, and enough space would be given on the coif for it to fit over the helmet well. Why you'd want the more flexible armour over the rigid one? Someone in another comment already made a good point - if you think about it, if the rigid armour is over the flexible one, it may impede the movement over the mail, since it's pinned under the helmet. If you wear the mail over the helmet, however, you can move your head about easily without the helmet blocking the mail links. That's a good theory, though in practice I'm not sure how much of an improvement wearing the coif over the helmet would be. Other than that, many skullcap helmets were clearly meant to be worn directly over the head, hence their tight-fitting shape, so maybe to keep them on the head of the wearer the coif was simply dragged over them.

@Lokarsh21

7 жыл бұрын

Indeed I was referring to the flat-topped helmets sometimes depicted under the coif, giving it a very odd shape. I find it tough to figure how you'd pull the mail coif down on your shoulders wearing that flat-topped style of helmet beneath it, especially giving how usually tight-fitting armour seems to be (Although that might require some exception: there are effigies and illuminations that show quite loose hauberks, as opposed to fitted, figure-hugging armours). So I'm wondering if they did at all. Probably, the only integral part of hauberks that absolutely had to be removable in some way were mittens. Otherwise, your arguements all make sense. I guess it would be too much of a risk to fight with just mail and a relatively thin padded layer over one's skull and it probably is more comfortable to wear the helmet closer to the head. As someone who's trying to plan ahead to assemble a XIII century harness, this sort of discussion is always enlightening.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

Historically, we tend to see an order of priority on protection, with the head always being the most important, then the torso, then the limbs. In many cases during this same time period the actual thorax wasn't just protected by a layer of padding and mail. Some sources call for a thick sleeveless padded garment to be worn *over* the mail (The King's Mirror c.1250), and the earliest coats of plates are developing at this time as well. I think in the cases of things like the pot helms under coifs and circular faced coifs, they were likely using thongs and laces to achieve the tight fit over what would have otherwise been impossible shapes to achieve. Having the coif on the outside might help to keep the helmet on tight underneath. Assuming laces / cordage, it's also, for the purposes of comfort, nice to be able to shed the coif and still retain some protection. I wish I had access to a good cerveilliere so I could experiment and give you a more informed opinion, but alas, I don't.

@Lokarsh21

7 жыл бұрын

A stimulating discussion nonetheless and maybe in the future there'll be an opportunity to do some semblance of testing in this sense. In some regards, I find that the central part of the Middle Ages offers some amazing examples in terms of practical design. I can't think of another moment when armourers managed to cover the entire body with effectively four pieces of metallic defense (Two hosen, a hauberk and a helm of some sort), all fairly easy to store, clean and relatively comfortable to wear. I am particularly fascinated by one folio of the Morgan Bible, showing David pulling off the mail he was presented with before his battle with Goliath, apparently being lined with padding or otherwise inclusive of some sort of cloth, since he's wearing his regular peasant's attire underneath. I doubt it is a simple oversight on behalf of the artist, given the amount of details displayed elsewhere. If indeed hauberks were directly lined with padding in some cases, that would mean an even more ingenious design towards practicality. Still, they wouldn't sacrifice their safety for it and I'm quite convince they'd at least put something solid, reliable and sturdy on their heads to protect them. I really hope I can soon get a soft kit and build up from it. Definitely using the Morgan Bible as a source to plan it.

What did he call the shin guards? I couldn't make out the word that he used.

@monkeyseatcatfood

7 жыл бұрын

albinotatertot He said "Schynbalds". Here is the Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schynbalds

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

It should have been noted (I forgot to mention this) that in the Morgan Bible specifically, Goliath wears them because the bible specifically states that he had 'greaves' on. Medieval schynbalds appear around the same time as the Morgan Bible was written, but Goliath would have been wearing them regardless, because it's in his biblical description. They were still a relatively uncommon piece of medieval kit at that time compared to the rest of his kit which was not abnormal compared to other c.1250 evidence.

I had a few questions and I figured answering an expert is better than my own opinion. Recently I have been doing research into Bronze age weapons, due to me wanting to cast some, and I was wondering how effective would bronze weapons, say Ancient Egypts arsenal, be against a knight in full plate with mail underneath. Would the weapons, including the flint arrows, stone maces, and few iron weapons, do some damage to said knights armor or would it just be terrible at said damage.

@darkynelp9777

7 жыл бұрын

As far as I know, not even a steel sword can cut through plate armor. Flint arrowheads would probably just break, and they are not shaped like armor piercing arrowheads like bodkin-arrowheads. Stonemaces on the other hand would be probably be useful like any other mace if you manage to hit your opponement on the head it could break his neck or maybe even giving him a concussion. The main advantage from having a steel mace over a stone one that the steel one would be that the stone one would be more brittle. I hope I was a little help to you.

@Crimson-kt7fd

7 жыл бұрын

Darkyne LP It does thank you. But I'm still stuck on the Copper, Bronze, and Early iron weapons of the time vs Steel plate. Mainly Spears, swords, axes, and various Arrowheads

@darkynelp9777

7 жыл бұрын

Well I think that swords or sword-like weapons would be useless against armor. Spears could be used against the horse of the Knight though. Axes may would have an effect on the knight because of their top heavy weight distrbution. The Arrowheads can only be looked at in conjunktion with the bow they were using, although bronce and copper heads as well as Ironheads would probably just bend, even Bows with steel tips could often not penetrate hardened full plate armor.

what i simply dont understand is why you would wear the coiuf OVER the secret helmet. resting mail over a hard surface seems to be a recipe for getting it smashed broken and cut a lot easily, and doing this also robs mail of some of it's best qualities

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

The surviving cervellieres / secret helms that exist have liner holes cut in the bottoms for an integral sewn in liner, so they were likely the inner most layer in those specific cases. I don't think the mail on top of the helmet was really there to do much _protecting_. I think the rest of the coif was more important, i.e., protection for the face and throat. The top of the coif just kept it on. It may have simply been more convenient, especially considering for a lot of this time the coif was still attached to the helmet. It might have even kept the helmet in place better. It does make removal of the coif easy without having to remove the helmet entirely, which is nice. But once the aventail (mail directly attached to the helmet) becomes popular, the coif's popularity gets relegated to lower tier kits.

there's an interesting response by a bloke called daniel fitzedward i'd be interested to see your opinion on it

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I've seen the video you're talking about and I think he's right on point.

@urbanmyths95

7 жыл бұрын

thank's for responding

best intro

Lets see if this creates an answer as grown up and differentiated as the answers to his MG42/Mg34 vs. Bren video;)

This actually makes sense, but I will make you the same question I just made to Loyd: he states that the knights went from helmets to coifs, around the time of the crusades, then back to helmets. Well, it just so happens that I remember a story about a large group of crusaders beying defeated by Salladin (2nd crusade? or was it 3rd?) not because they were bested in battle, but because of dehidratation... what brings me to my point: could it be that, realizing the huge problems with the heat, the crusaders started using coifs, which allow for better air exchange, therefore slowering the process of overheating the soldier's head, and since they were "the warriors of God" and all that, the "fashion" spread among Europe because of that? And then, after the crusades grew out of fashion, they went back to helmets, since they were fighting in Europe again and didn't needed to care about the heat anymore? I mean, who cares if the great healm protects your head more than the coif if it's going to kill you before you reach the battlefield because of dehidratation, right?

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I don't necessarily believe that the foundational assumption is true, that they 'went from helmets to coifs .... and back to helmets.' I believe it's far more likely that the cervelliere / secret helm was at the very least being used as a primary defense for the head in most if not all depictions that appear like there is only a coif present. In that configuration, it's definitely a 'lighter kit' than a fully-enclosed great helm, but we also know for certain that great helms were commonly used throughout this period, and in 'Outremmer' as well. I don't think the coif was ever intended to be a purely _stand-alone_ head protection. The Saracens wore metal helmets. Instead we hear isolated accounts of switching to things like Kettle Helmets in the place of Great Helms when breathing became an issue in the heat of the Middle East.

@marcelosilveira2276

7 жыл бұрын

Knyght Errant thank you :)

Why would you wear a coifette over a coif?

@KnyghtErrant

5 жыл бұрын

It's not terribly unusual for some configurations of armor to double the mail in areas where they might require enhanced protection. For example, in the early 15th century, Italian fashion sometimes favored wearing a coat of mail with an additional skirt or fringe of mail worn over it, resulting in a doubled layer of mail at the groin. In the case of the coif, it's also perfectly possible that something more complex is going on.

Both gentlemen make good videos and both are gentlemen.

Excuse me, were you in SWCC?

@KnyghtErrant

6 жыл бұрын

No, I was a helicopter pilot.

I agree with your perspective that the art is depicting a realistic image of the armor. People however, tend to dismiss images of swords slicing helmets as exaggeration. It seems like medieval combat would be brutal enough without making it worse in art.

@barghestblue731

7 жыл бұрын

If helmets were that bad, they wouldn't have helped in any way at all, and would not have been worn. And medieval artists aren't known for being entirely accurate in their paintings and drawings.

@martshearer498

7 жыл бұрын

My view is that helmets were not so bad as to be worthless, nor so good as to be impregnable. The quality of the iron was always an issue, and some blows were exceptional. Men still perform nearly unimaginable feats under the influence of adrenalin. It would have been far easier to wrestle the helmet off and force a surrender, though.

@barghestblue731

7 жыл бұрын

My main argument against swords of the era slicing through armor of the era is that both would have been made of the strongest steel available at the time, so each would have been made of the same material essentially, and it would take super human strength (even with adrenaline) to drive a sword through a plate of armor (like a helmet for instance) like is shown. It is almost impossible to cut through plates of armor with any weapon shorter than a Dane axe and even then it's tough, a sword would not have done so. Swords are not as powerful as people think, and armor is a lot stronger than people believe it is.

@RyuFireheart

7 жыл бұрын

In Hollywood movies they use real life guns or replicas on the movies, but the action scenes or how the guns are used are exagerated. So the old artists of medieval times probably did the same.

@pauljames9738

6 жыл бұрын

For an eyewitness account of what happens when you AREN'T wearing a helmet, here is Edward Grim's description of the 1170 murder of Thomas Becket (Grim was close enough to the action that he was slightly wounded, himself): "The wicked knight leapt suddenly upon him, cutting off the top of the crown which the unction of sacred chrism had dedicated to God. Next he received a second blow on the head, but still he stood firm and immovable. At the third blow he fell on his knees and elbows, offering himself a living sacrifice, and saying in a low voice, "For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death." But the third knight inflicted a terrible wound as he lay prostrate. By this stroke, the crown of his head was separated from the head in such a way that the blood white with the brain, and the brain no less red from the blood, dyed the floor of the cathedral. The same clerk who had entered with the knights placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr, and, horrible to relate, scattered the brains and blood about the pavements, crying to the others, 'Let us away, knights; this fellow will arise no more."

9:54 Shin whatnow? balds?

@KnyghtErrant

4 жыл бұрын

Schynbalds. It's essentially a greave that only covers the front and outside of the lower leg, it doesn't wrap around like a fully enclosed greave.

@RainMakeR_Workshop

4 жыл бұрын

Knyght Errant cheers. I always thought they were just called greaves. Didn’t know the open back ones has a specific name. Is there an arm equivalent?

i wish Ian was my dad.

@KanaiIle

7 жыл бұрын

I´m sure he wont mind if you call him daddy.

@ItsJustMilkISwear

7 жыл бұрын

Gazorpazorpfield i already do

@FirstDagger

7 жыл бұрын

And Ian from Forgotten Weapons as uncle.

The more i watch lloyd's and other historical channels the more he seems to be biased and get less and less right for instance his videos on spandaus and hema for example anybody else notice this.

@MisterKisk

7 жыл бұрын

Lloyd has a tendency to reject artistic depictions (especially seen in his assertion of hoplites using a spear overarm is just artistic license and not a proper depiction of combat). The irony; one of his arguments that hoplites used underarm spears, is Boeotian shields/dipylon shields, because of the scalloped cutouts on the sides, when the only historical evidence of such shields is from Greek vase paintings. There's no archaeological findings of these types of shields.

@emirfurkanklc204

7 жыл бұрын

Well, while they have no expertise that I know of and some might find them distasteful, Thegn and Thrand put these things to the test, which I appreciate. I remember watching a video of them trying both the overarm and the underarm with a dummy behind to simulate being in a phalanx. It got in the way of most of the underarm thrusts, while the overarm thrusts allowed for freer movement and allowed him to get better protection from the aspis, since he pretty much exposed his hand only. I would imagine being surrounded by fully armed people would make underarm thrusts even more unlikely. Furthermore, overarm handling of the spear made it visibly easier to control, as well as increasing the momentum in a thrust; thus making it have a stronger impact, since its more of a throwing motion than a thrusting one. Go figure. Not to mention the possible wrist injuries if you tried to hit something hard with an underarm thrust the way Lindy implies. It might be plausible in a 1 on 1 situation where you might want to injure your opponents exposed thigh, but even then I highly doubt it.

Knyght Errant is was wondering about you opinion on the historical accuracy of the Gjermundbu Viking Helmet - AH6739_14 exact name on kult of athena. thank you if you respond and have a nice day.

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

The oculars are very oversized and misshapen compared to the original, there are other departures from the original in overall proportion as well. The original ocular is not pierced for mail like on the reproduction. The repro is also using butted mail, which will not stand up to any real use.

so another lindybeige video in which he just makes things up based on his educated guesses and not the historical Record? nothing new I guess.

Well I have to comment, this chap makes sense! Full credit to him. If you want me to put my hand on my heart and be honest (and I’m about too, so get over it!) and say I’m a self-opinionated idiot, a European racist, then I just have! I never really understood why Americans talk or comment about chainmaille and plate armour when they never used it seeing their country is only a few hundred years old! I always thought it was a European and Asian issues that they know bugger all about. But, I think this chap is right! So, for being narrow minded, I apologise to myself and to all American’s that read this post I’m really not anti-American, I live in what I think is the 53rd state, so please don’t spam me!

@pauljames9738

6 жыл бұрын

Well, as an American, I take your point; but how many contemporary Europeans have first-hand knowledge of the care and feeding of things armorial? Being an American, with a certain awareness of my own nation's history, would absolutely not be the slightest help if I were to attempt to lap a replica Folsom point.

I just started watching and I'm skeptical... Because you have a razor laptop.

@Aidames

Жыл бұрын

He enjoys gaming.

as a french speaker, great vid, but please try to pronounce "cerverlière" "cerveliaire" as it would be closer to what we'd say in french :D

hey Ian check out Greenleaf workshop on youtube he has excellent armor making videos

@KnyghtErrant

7 жыл бұрын

I'm already a subscriber :)

You keep on saying "servelliea" but clearly that's not the right spelling. What is it so I can look for it.

@KnyghtErrant

3 жыл бұрын

Cervelliere

SERVELLIERR. The 'r' is pronounced in 'cervelliere'.

Did the artists really know that the material culture of Biblical times and Biblical lands differed from their own? And even if they did, would they know anything about it? Doesn’t it seem more likely that they depicted contemporary material culture in Biblical scenes simply because it was what the artists knew?

@KorKhan89

7 жыл бұрын

Robert Fisher They could probably look out the window and see people dressed in contemporary clothing/armour to act as models for their artwork. If they'd wanted anything else, they'd pretty much have had to make it all up, considering they didn't have anything to go by. Not to mention that the whole idea of "historical accuracy" as a desirable quality is largely a modern concept. Even Shakespeare's plays are chock full of anachronisms.

@Tullio238

7 жыл бұрын

I think they would have known if they'd thought about it. I mean, due to pilgrimages people did travel long distances across Europe, so logically most people would be aware that material culture isn't homogeneous the world over. What I think is pretty clear, is that when it came to illustrating history, they just didn't think that was important.

@MRKapcer13

7 жыл бұрын

I think it might be a little ignorant to see them like that. They were aware that other cultures and other time periods dressed and looked differently. Statues and period artwork all existed back in Medieval times, it's not like they were completely destroyed, and while yes the world was a lot bigger back then, I'm sure they would have had some understanding of the past and of what those lands looked like. I have to agree with what Ian implies - the Bible was written and illustrated for people who may not understand these concepts, and therefore shows people in contemporary clothing/armour because that's what would be understood. This happened all throughout the Middle Ages and well into Renaissance. After all, many great works of art either showed as either accurate for earlier periods or accurate for Renaissance period, depending on the artist's choice.

@300warrior300

7 жыл бұрын

Well it's also just the language of art at the time. Any historical art or films we make genuinely says more about us then it does about the time period concerned. Maybe people will look back on our historical films and laugh at the fact the characters speak in 21st century modern english.

Mmm, think you’re misconstruing Lindy’s argument a little there. I don’t remember him saying, just disregard the iconography completely

@KnyghtErrant

4 жыл бұрын

It's mostly in response to his comments around the 13 minute mark in his video where he intentionally tries to cast doubt on the armor in the miniatures by saying "that's right, these are biblical stories and so all these costumes are just made up.." which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of medieval iconography. It may have just been for effect or comedy, but it can still cause a lot of confusion for people who are genuinely interested in trying understand how to analyze material culture and conduct proper source criticism on medieval illustration.

@TheOldBlackShuckyDog

4 жыл бұрын

Knyght Errant that’s fair enough, it’s been a fair few months since I’ve watched it. I appreciate a content creator who takes the time to reply to some random comment though. Glad to see your back to making videos too

It isn't wise to brush off an entire set of depictions due to only certain inaccuracies or exaggerations.

ZarlanThe Green Lindybeige's content is still very interesting and he covers topics other youtubers don't cover he may not be the most accurate with certain historical topics but he is still very entertaining to watch and the reason that Ian and Matt started their channels so think before you comment. Also there is a lot of evidence to suggest that climate change is overrated and doesn't not happen to anywhere near the extent that "experts" say it does

Lindy who?? Ahhh that conservative/right winged guy full of himself? Yeah, i unsubbed from his channel ages ago.... Ian, I don't know if you talked about it already, but I always wondered how could they go to "the toilet" wearing body armor and those undergarments??? I am a diver and motorbike rider, nobody wants to kill me and yet it is kind of a hard job... But what about on a battlefield while wearing full plate? How do YOU do?? It's a serious question....

@KorKhan89

7 жыл бұрын

redkawa636 Not an expert myself, but I have noticed that even with full plate armour, the nether regions usually aren't fully enclosed. They have a skirt-like construct called a fould protecting them instead. In addition, you might wear braiettes, which amounted to mail boxer shorts. In either case, you might be able to go to the toilet at a pinch, albeit maybe with some help. In the worst case, though, e.g. in the heat of battle, you might just do your business anyway and clean up later. Those sort of environments wouldn't smell too nice anyway.

@p_serdiuk

7 жыл бұрын

redkawa636 You are confusing a deep interest and intensity of presentation with ego. Linybeige has a more entertaining, humorous channel than a scholarly one, and it's obvious he's pretty humble and anxious off screen. Also, there is nothing inherently bad in being right-wing.

@GerackSerack

7 жыл бұрын

You speak as if being conservative/right winged was something bad...

@barghestblue731

7 жыл бұрын

Is there anything inherently bad about having a more right-ward or conservative view even if it disagrees with your own? He knows what he is talking about most of the time, and he certainly has a better grasp of things than most people, if that comes off as being full of himself then I'm sorry but a lot of youtubers are truly full of themselves so I can't help you there.

@gadyariv2456

7 жыл бұрын

Ya, he some of his views are fairly right leaning. but in the acceptable spectrum, they rise to a level that only makes him a little bit of a Douchebag, not a full blown right winger. It would have shown had he been one. He is fairly harmless in his views. ...and for every one commenting, yes there is something inherently wrong with being right winged! p.s you don't know what Ian LaSpina political leanings are... will you unsubscribe from this channel because of his private political views what ever they may be?

I have stopped watching Lindybeige channel, he so very often misinform about historical subjects.

The mail coif is about two centuries older than the cervelliere (10th century vs. late 12th century) so your explanation might work out for the later usage but it's clearly not what the coif was invented for, as the coif is older. Also, it seemed like you did exactly what you accused Lindy of in the beginning, you just did it to another image instead. You said he sort of explained away certain images by saying it was a lack of detail or the art style of the period or whatever, but then you went on to do it for the image where there was no cervelliere, and just speculated that he probably put on another helmet. How is that claim any more reasonable than what Lindy did with the other image? You both just basically ignored the images that didn't fit your hypothesis. From what I can find about the Morgan Bible, it's thought to have been made in the mid 1200s so perhaps coifs were indeed used with some sort of cervelliere at the time of the paintings. That might explain the art style but still doesn't really explain much about the intended use of the coif, as the cervelliere was basically the latest new technology at that time so obviously doesn't work well for representing battles of the past.

@KnyghtErrant

6 жыл бұрын

The supposition that it was worn with an additional helmet when not shown with one is predicated on the idea that a coif in and of itself is not sufficient sole protection for an otherwise well armored knight. The mail coif does not pre-date the use of helmets being worn over it (Norman conicals, spangenhelms etc.), that was standard practice before the mid 13th century when the Morgan Bible was illuminated, so it is an educated guess based on evidence and surrounding context, not dismissal of an image. The other option, as I discussed in the video and linked to in the description is a simple doubling of mail using a coiffette.

Not an assault on lindybeige? As a youtuber viewer, I am assaulted for him. I will therefore assault myself.

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

Surprisingly, I've rarely come into contact with rabid fans of his. I do remember an occasion or two where someone expressed a fact Lindybeige had, "contradicted", and the person, despite expressing it mildly, was horribly treated and mocked. It seemed incredibly arrogant.

@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin

7 жыл бұрын

Hans Smirnov Bah, its the internet, where you are safe in your home. Not like real life. People got butthurt at a comment, so what? I'd hardly consider that 'horribly mistreatment'.

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

No Free Will Huh? Well, yes, I wasn't implying it was comparable to people who have to worry about changing locations regularly because mobs might lynch them. My sympathy is surely much stronger for the people I know who go through that. However, I do not agree that mocking and insulting and bullying someone extensively over a comment is nothing. We have seen where that goes with Social Justice Warriors, who bully their own members for missteps until little girls commit suicide (and thankfully survive). This culture of extensive, unreasonable offense and bullying is an evil thing, even if it is online.

@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin

7 жыл бұрын

Hans Smirnov It's the communists vs. the fascists vs. the huggabaloo badoo badoo

@hanssmirnov9946

7 жыл бұрын

No Free Will ?

I think it's silly when people spend so much time studying art from the time and think that that must be how armor was worn at the time. You are under this false idea that artists perfectly or even attempt to replicate reality. You have to understand artists to understand art, artists use shortcuts, artists usually exaggerate some features and downplay others to usually promote a message. Art from this time usually look as though it was painted by a child. The proportions are almost comical. I personally don't think paintings are a terribly accurate form of studying history and I agree with Lindybeige when he says that art isn't all that accurate. You need to study artists and know how they think before you study art.

@KnyghtErrant

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, of course the sources need to be scrutinized. You need to understand how manuscripts are illuminated, what conventions they follow, what their limitations are, the subject matter, how each of those factors changes from region to region and through time. You also need to cross reference art with other forms of documentation, which we have in these cases, like surviving pieces of armor, both coifs (which we have in abundance) and other forms of protection worn with coifs. Beyond that, we temper both of those things with documentary evidence, descriptive accounts of how these objects were worn, wills, inventories, purchase records, etc... then you take a look at the scholarship, the 'history of the history' if you will... how did post-medieval scholars handle this subject and how did it change over time... what we _shouldn't_ do is simply go 'art is fake, and throw out the baby with the bathwater,' we need to take a far more comprehensive approach, I'm most definitely not pinning all of my argument on 'art.'