Matt like this style of showing all the medieval tapestries and manuscript pages that show period weapons etc. Nice change of style.

@holemas

4 жыл бұрын

This! I'm new on this channel but most of the times I wish other channels would show the sources and evidence of where they get the information so I can then go and check it for myself

Why were the dark ages so dark? Because there were so many knights.😂 I’ll see myself out..

@smilenowsmileforever4226

4 жыл бұрын

🤣

@2008davidkang

4 жыл бұрын

I bet there were many sleepless knights

@KristinkaAranova

4 жыл бұрын

Actually knights didn’t exist in the dark ages lol

@mikesummers-smith4091

4 жыл бұрын

I'll get your coat of plates.

@jimbo3

4 жыл бұрын

@@KristinkaAranova Yes they did. Maybe there is a certain nation or region that it does not apply to, but using Wikipedia (since it's always correct lol) knights were around the 10th century and the Dark Ages ended around the 15th century. I just want to defend a great joke.

Looks like someone had a entire day of fun on manuscriptminiatures

I always wondered what they called Knightrider in Germany? Ritterritter?

@andreweden9405

4 жыл бұрын

"Ritterreiter"!😂

@qwertyuiopzxcfgh

4 жыл бұрын

Same in Dutch, "ridderrijder"

@NamelessBody

4 жыл бұрын

Knightrider, as in Mr. Knight, is known as "He who brought freedom and unity and early meme fodder"

@lukasdimmler2622

4 жыл бұрын

Berittener Ritter?

@michaelguth4007

4 жыл бұрын

Germans did something really simple... they called it "Knightrider"

Lance and sword remained the primary weapons of cavalry until cavalry stopped being a thing.

@jayjay-du4gr

4 жыл бұрын

The lance did mostly fall out of use for several centuries in most of Europe however, replaced by the pistol (or just the sword).

@maxlutz3674

4 жыл бұрын

@Jimbo Jones German mountain troops still use animals of burden, mainly mules and haflingers. Rumor has it they also train commandoes as horsemen.

@DeliveryMcGee

4 жыл бұрын

Cavalry didn't stop being A Thing, they just got better lances (in the form of APFSDS shot, but tanks still operate by Patton's horse playbook.)

@brittakriep2938

4 жыл бұрын

@Jimbo Jones: In Germany the lance disappeared during the 30 years war. But in 18th century the lancers in Germany had been rare, this had been mostly soldiers from german influenced regions in Hungary, Croatia or Poland. In the napoleonic era the german rulers noticed the quality of polish lancers, so under the name Ulanen lancers appeared again in Germany in the 1820s. In the late 19th century the different branches oft cavallry ( dragoons, hussars, lancers, cuirassiers , mounted hunters ) keept their old names and uniforms, but the training became the same. For an, to me, unknown reason most cavallry men got lances, made from steel pipes/tubes?and filled with crushed/ zerknülltem paper for the noise. This lance was used up to 1927 ( the über up to 1941), after 1927 the lances had been used as flagpoles, to build decorative barracks gates or had been comverted into tools for working with wires, for example telephone wires.

@brittakriep2938

4 жыл бұрын

Mistake: the saber, not the über :-)

I can't think of a game other than Mount & Blade, that made me appreciate the lance so much. I wish I could the same about daggers.

@jarlnils435

3 жыл бұрын

A dagger is a good weapon on wall fights because longer weapons stuck

@hia5235

3 жыл бұрын

Its a shame. The Dagger kills more knights than any other weapon.

@watchface6836

2 жыл бұрын

@@jarlnils435 I was about to say. I always kept a dagger or axe in my inventory for siege battles. Otherwise you gotta wait forever to accomplish anything if you're going melee

@jarlnils435

2 жыл бұрын

@@watchface6836 a good long one handed axe is also a good weapon from horseback. Against armored opponents.

Happened to pause at 12:11, totally thought the soldier in red was doing the double finger-gun point at first. o_O

@tiberiu_nicolae

4 жыл бұрын

Sup peasant!

@Yimyimyimyim277

4 жыл бұрын

I love the knight on the far left “get a load of this guy”

@DarkEmpireGames

3 жыл бұрын

"ayyyyy"

2:58 the archers in the top left corner. A) a nice representation of the drawing of a heavy bow. B) thay are shown firing over the head's of there one frontline. C)both.11:17 (thanks Matt) The archers in the front. A) firing at eachother from 2m "pointblank" as Tod and Capwell put it. B) shown so the audience can instantly recognise their target.

@faramund9865

4 жыл бұрын

Hm, first one B and second one also B. The 14th century war images, as far as I know, always have the archers in the front line doing a skirmish battle. The reason they’re drawn close to eachother is simple, otherwise the artist would have to draw a vast space of nothing. Making the individuals smaller in comparison. He only had so much space to draw in the manuscript.

@5:18 "Damn it, Steve. How many times doth we haf to tell ye that an inverted baby is not an effective sidearm!"

Really interesting about early Frankish knights using bows. By the end of the medieval period, bows were again a major "knightly" weapon with about half of the mounted companies (gendarmes, condotierre etc) being designated as archers.

Sure, shields were good against slings and arrows, but not much good against outrageous fortune.

@patrickmccurry1563

4 жыл бұрын

I hear many question that.

@nobbynoris

4 жыл бұрын

The door's that way.

Regular soldiers : Pointy Sticc Knights and men-at-arms : BIG Pointy Sticc on horseback.

Pointy stick > anything else

@shorewall

4 жыл бұрын

I love it. :D

@nbip2845

4 жыл бұрын

pointy broken bone doesn't fear moisture

@INTERNERT

4 жыл бұрын

they should eat more fresh fruit

@mikesummers-smith4091

4 жыл бұрын

@@INTERNERT Tigers are vegetarian.

Weapons aside, i'd really like to hear more about their warfare, tactics, organisation, interelationship etc.

It's important to realise that knights did not become shock cavalry until the early or mid 11th century (although in East Rome the role was developed earlier by the tagmata army, but the cataphracts of the Tagma were not really knights). One of the first documented uses of knights as shock cavalry is the battle of civitate in 1053, and then Hastings in 1066 (both featuring Norman knights). Before that knights were armored troops on horseback that functioned very similar to the Equites or, among western troops, using javelins or indeed bows. It's probably also the reason why norman adventurers were able to establish themselves in many parts of Europe (for example England and Sicily), because they were the first and most experienced of a new breed of cavalry. P.S: One of the reasons for the development of heavier plate to protect the torso was very much the role of cavalry as shock cavalry. While gambeson+maille can protect you from sword strokes or even prevent the lance from penetrating it won't stop a lance from caving in the chestcage. There was simply a need for much stiffer torso armor that spread the blow over a larger surface. Possibly these early "cuirasses" were made from boiled leather before they started to incorporate plates (as the name indicates).

@MinSredMash

4 жыл бұрын

Nevermind that 'shock cavalry' is an imaginary construction imposed on the Middle Ages from a Victorian vantage point, and not a concept that any medieval person would recognize. The only basis for drawing an arbitrary line between 'shock cavalry' and 'non shock cavalry' is to point vaguely at a few battles with supremely nebulous descriptions in the source material. It is just the Stirrup Hypothesis kicking feebly after it has been put out of its misery. Charlemagne's knights were not using primarily javelins and bows any more than the Normans were mounting reckless frontal charges against infantry all the time. Shock cavalry is an ill-suited concept to medieval warfare in general, since knights were in no way specialized at charging into infantry, but spent most of their time skirmishing against their own mounted counterparts. And where do you suppose the Normans got their horses and techniques from? Scandinavia? They got from their French lands where the knightly arts had been developing for centuries. Lastly, the development of the breastplate is no token of anything in particular. It is useful in a shock cavalry role, yes, but equally useful for jousting against other knights.

@fiendishrabbit8259

4 жыл бұрын

@@MinSredMash a. Don't argue against a strawman. Shock cavalry in that after several centuries of using mostly mail and relatively similar equipment (yes, improvements. But not very radical ones) we see a very rapid development of armor and saddles (in what would become the medieval war saddle with very high bows) that both protects the rider and keeps him secure during a charge (wether into infantry or while jousting against other cavalry). There is no question that this equipment is revolutionary, as norman forces, and later german cavalry mercenaries, prove decisive in battles in a way they previously weren't (in italy, scandinavia and england). Cavalry becomes dominant in a way that you previously only saw with horse archers. b. Scandinavia? No. While they picked up most of their cavalryskills in france, but new and aggressive tactics were probably picked up as mercenaries for eastern rome. There are documented norman mercenaries (in large numbers) in east roman employ half a century before the beginning of major norman "adventures". East roman cavalry is the first place where you see pictorial evidence for using couched lances (instead of over or under arm techniques), and the kontos was used much more extensively in the tagma than elsewhere (typicly with a central formation of lance armed cavalry supported by horse archers). c. The point I made with the breastplate is exactly opposite to the one you interpreted it as. The primary advantage is in cavalry vs cavalry clashes. it's primarily in a joust (ie, two riders with spears charging each other) where you needs the added protection against blunt force trauma. That would change later, as powerful missile weapons become more common in European armies, but in the 11th and 12th century mail is perfectly fine for protection from infantry, but definitely deficient when it comes to protection from other cavalry.

@genghiskhan6809

3 жыл бұрын

@fiendishrabbit Indeed. To my knowledge, the primary protection against a lance in the days before plate armor was a shield.

Matt, I think there was another reason for the popularity of maces and axes among European knights, and it speaks volumes about the bleak class divisions of that era. A lot of the time in warfare knights would have been riding amongst enemy infantry, and all they really had to do was strike DOWNWARDS. Because their opponents were below them they could not attack them and the The infantry soldiers could make very little defence other than to cover themselves with their shields (when they had shields) or just cover their heads with their arms. No defensive ability was necessary for the weapons they were hacking down with. This idea was suggested to me by TH White in the sequel to The Sword In The Stone, (soz, can't recall the title) where he presents conventional warfare of the time as a competition to slaughter each other side's peasant conscripts. Ie, no person of worth or note (aristo) ever gets killed or injured or in most cases even loses a tooth, and for them a battle is like watching the Grand National. At the urging of Merlin, Arthur, in his first battle, bypasses the opposition's infantry to make a surprise attack on their cavalry, thereby slaughtering nobles by the dozen, killing off the commanders and causing panic which spreads to the troops and leads to the routing of the entire opposition. This act causes outrage in polite society, since it is considered "simply not done" to actually attack people of rank. This is how I see it. Maces and axes were fine for hacking down on the heads, necks and shoulders of peasants who had been press-ganged into fighting for their lords' causes. The cavalry charge would have spread terror amongst their ranks and they would in most cases have broken and been been RUNNING AWAY from the horsemen, which made it a turkey-shoot for the brave boys on horseback. All they needed was a heavy blunt instrument which could hack downwards with lethal force. The fleeing footsoldiers were sitting ducks. But when said knights came up against a similarly armed opponent ie another knight, they needed a weapon that could also be used in defense, ie to block or parry. So, swords. Basically, the need for knights to carry swords as back-up weapons, in my opinion, goes back to the old adage regarding what happens when you try to pick on people your own size. I feel it gets too often overlooked that for most of recorded the usual practice for horsemen was not to range them against your opponents'; cavalry, but against their infantry, who were likely to break and flee, leaving them fatally exposed, at which point the cavalry would receive the order to charge. Cavalry were essentially a terror-weapon. Nothing chivalric about them.

Matt, these illustrations and illuminations are so gorgeous! They are like the Medieval edged weapons equivalent of a film on one of those naughty websites!😂 As someone who has spent A LOT of time perusing the internet for illustrations of Medieval combat, I'm amazed to be seeing many for the first time! Thank you for paying homage to the knightly trio of spear/lance, sword and dagger! Those happen to be the three arms that make up my own Medieval weapon set!

Sharp exchanges of view, blunt opinions, and long, pointed arguments.

@anonymousbosch9265

4 жыл бұрын

Steve Smith nowadays we just send discontent downrange

@robin_5099

4 жыл бұрын

Steve Smith Nice. I like that

3:48 Full helmets > Open Faced Helmets.

@baronprocrastination1722

4 жыл бұрын

Advertising existed for as long as there was a concept of currency, it seems.

I was looking for this video for a very long time. Thanks Matt!

Fantastic video of incredible quality, a delight to watch :)

fantastic presentation, matt. keep it up!

The lance, mace and bow combination sounds very much like the eastern cataphract's classic kit. Maybe they or their roman immitation counterparts were Charlemagne's inspiration for his knights.

Great format. Loved it! :)

Another excellent video from scholagladiatoria

I love this format Matt. Sources on the images would be much appreciated in the future.

I really enjoyed this video and all the examples in art shown throughout. I am enjoying this new mini-documentary playlist. Could you consider doing something about how spear/lance heads changed over time, if at all? I've heard of lance typologies but I've never come across an example image. I'm sure they became more specialized for punching through armour like the swords did.

Hey Matt, I've been watching your channel for years. This is a really good video. Can you do a follow-up video on the decline of fully armored knights in war and of the decline of knighthood in European society in general? I've been wondering about this for a little while, and I want to know how well the standard explanations of 15th-century developments in infantry and artillery on the war side and centralization of governments and urbanization of economies on the society and politics side really hold up under scrutiny.

Ty ... so many beautiful pictures plus information ... fly safe in these times

Would like to see a piece on slingers.

I wonder this: did knights expect to loose their horse in some situations? If so, how did they attempt to survive the fall from the horse? Did any ever have horses in reserve for this reason, or maybe just to have a fresh horse?

@johnhanley9946

4 жыл бұрын

That's a good question, knights must have routinely fallen off horses, I wonder if there's anything ever been written about it.

@johnhanley9946

4 жыл бұрын

@Colin Cleveland It seems different if the person is in full armor though.

@joegillian314

4 жыл бұрын

@@johnhanley9946 That also crossed my mind about the difference between an armored or unarmored rider. The armor would protect you a lot, and probably better than having no armor in most situations, but maybe it has it's own risks. I can believe that the fall from the horse would be survivable most of the time, but what I really want to know is just how jarring was the fall, and did they do anything to brace for the fall? We know a fall from a horse can be crippling as well as possibly fatal. The more I think about it, the more I imagine that being unhorse was a scenario they really didn't want to think about (i.e. a worse case scenario), but at the same time they must have thought the possibility was there, and therefore it's worth preparing for it, if you can. Perhaps there isn't really a moment where you can recognize that you're going to be unhorsed fast enough to make any kind of preparation? I also wonder about the anti cavalry weapons that target the horse. Certainly if a mounted fighter knew they might face these sorts of weapons they would take into consideration the possibility of being unhorsed, no?

@caspar_van_walde

4 жыл бұрын

At least in the high middle ages it was a thing ( to my knowledge). It was the work of squires bringing their knights horses to them, if they fell of. These thoughts are somewhat linked in my head to the battle at Worringen ( a very major battle where the knighthood and nobles of the lower Rhine area of what is nowadays Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France, may be seen as the archetypal knightly battle ( as far as I understood so far)) in 1288 ( but I am not sure if I am misled here). But would seem reasonable, as they usually had a couple of war horses and squires ( if they were actual knights or nobles). Also some rules of early tournaments might suggest that squires had quite active roles in fights (as those rules forbid interventions like stone throwing by squires of the knights fighting). Unfortunately I am unsure where I read this.

@MrBottlecapBill

4 жыл бұрын

@@caspar_van_walde They most certainly had multiple horses. In a long battle after many miles of charges horses will tire like anyone. Swapping for a fresh horse could be very important and of course they may be stuck with arrows and injured as well, which would put your own life at risk. I can't see how they would operate efficiently without multiple horses. The idea of squires bringing them new mounts is interesting as well......but I also suspect you would help your fellow knights who were downed back to safety where they could remount as well. Unless the battle went badly for you and you were trapped, in which case you may have to fight your way out with your backup weapon on foot...........or surrender and be ransomed. It must have been chaos. Ideally, you didn't want to fall off your horse, or have your horse killed form under you which means you didn't want to stop moving for long.

Great educational video !

The sling and stone was is and will always be a viable weapon. It could still be used today.

Presumably, if you lost your lance and still had the horse, you could escape to resupply with a new lance. If the sword is adequate for the job in-front, you use that instead of getting a new lance. Could this be a reason for lance/sword combo being more common than lance/mace. Afterall, if the mace is rarely used because its difficult to wear, that suggests the side arm is very rarely used.

So the knightly equipment consists of: Long pointy stick, medium pointy stick and short pointy stick? Aight got it.

@benjaminodonnell258

3 жыл бұрын

Also occassionally a big thuddy stick...

Wow your videos are just soooooo good, you and metatron are my favorites but I like a lot of the others too.

In the artwork @3:19 is a depiction of knights with straps going around their necks and attached to their shields

My guess is that it all depends on the context of their situation and their time period

@theonleeone6291

4 жыл бұрын

That's true. Context is key!

@iopklmification

4 жыл бұрын

You forgot personnal taste, and current fashion.

@faramund9865

4 жыл бұрын

Haha, yes yes, very good joke and reference. And YES that’s true, but the general rule holds up quite well across the medieval period: Knights were lancers.

Wow, so many views and comments already after just 11 minutes! Really excited to see this video :)

William the Conqueror ordered his Knights to have three Lances, Maces or Axes in addition to the Sword as standard ergo his Knights had greater means of using a weapon for the right job in hand and English Knights also developed a two handed Sword with a longer Blade for greater reach by the time of Edward the First.

Amazing video. May I trouble you for the references to manuscripts used?

Very nice video. The question occurs to me, when and by who was the flail used? It seems to be a development for a particular purpose, but also maybe awkward to use. so I'm curious on if it was used by/against knights or for some other reason.

I've never trained HEMA but with some friends had a play with halberd/poleaxe. The number of angles of attack this weapon had is amazing. It is practically a can opener specialised in opening up people.

Samurai were arguably knights and they too used bows, and I believe the equivalents of knights of the Muslim world also used bows in some eras.

@shorewall

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, and Byzantine Cataphracts had bows. I think that is the one blind spot of the European Knight. Bows would be awesome, even if they had to stop or dismount to shoot.

@alikuzyaka2152

4 жыл бұрын

Arabs and North Africans equipped themselves in a same fashion to European Knights. After the Turkic take over we see those depictions of "Muslim mounted archers". Since all steppe nomads knew how to use a bow on horseback

@TXTypewriter

4 жыл бұрын

At least some knights used ranged weapons - for example, the Knights Hospitaller almost definitely used crossbows during naval battles, since you can't (or at least, shouldn't) do a lance charge from horseback on a boat.

@TM-eo7mn

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, mamluks did

@instinct922

4 жыл бұрын

European cavalry did use bows. Serbian cavalry used bows and lances up to 14th century when they switched to crossbows.

de Ruiter in the Netherlands has origins to Ritter. de Ruiter being a Dutch surname. Which had multiple spelling variations Quite a bit of those names in my Ancestry tree.

09:08 Props for Uccello's _Battle of San Romano_ zoom in.

Weird. I just got into life is feudal and was thinking about making a ‘Knight’, as in an actual fully armored lancer. Funny how most people don’t know that Knights are cavalry. I most certainly didn’t know it until I saw that Modern History video.

Hi Matt greetings from Los Angeles California good video

very interesting thank you

Nice introduction to the knight! 👍

Matt , can you give me some starting point to where to look for (if there any any) cavalry treatise?

@CanalTremocos

4 жыл бұрын

boydellandbrewer.com/i-the-book-of-horsemanship-i-by-duarte-i-of-portugal.html Unfortunately, the bubonic plague got to the author before the author got to the end.

What about PLOT armor? I hear they are invincible

3:48 aww the 2 guys on the left are hugging each other even in the midst of battle.

Note that Mat doesn't mention the war flail (a [spiked?] weight attached to a chain attached to a stick). There are no records of such a weapon ever used in combat. I think there is a mention of one carried in a parade, and one used on a helmeted squire at a tournament, so that he may 'get familiar to the feel of his teeth breaking and not panic' (the squire was losing his baby teeth).

The picture at 13:06 is incredibly beautiful. Do you know where you got the original?

Thanks for the video, going east can we consider the bow the primary weapon of a knight? I always wonder if we can call a bizantine cataphract a knight and if so, I think the bow replaces the lance.

During the naval battles which occurred simultaneously with Leonidas and the 300 at Thermopylae, it was the Egyptian marines and their heavy iron axes which most troubled the Greeks, including the Spartan marines fighting under Themistocles' command. It seems that the heavy iron hooks and axes of the Egyptian marines were developed from conflict with Greeks and were designed to shear through heavy bronze armor, like that worn by Greeks. So, the Greeks put a boy who could swim into the water well upstream from the Persian navy, and allowed the currents to carry him to the invading forces, and convincingly delivered his carefully rehearsed message, and misled the Persians with a false report that the Greeks would flee TO THE WEST of a particular island, which the Greeks had no intention of actually doing. Xerxes deployed the dreaded Egyptians and their heavy iron hooks and axes to the west of said island, with stern admonitions that if the fleeing Greeks escaped them, then the Egyptian sailors would die. Thus motivated, the Egyptians maintained a very close watch on the channel west of the island, effectively removing them from the battle which took place to the north and east of the island, during which the bronze armored Greeks faced off with similarly armed and armored marines like themselves, a kind of fight which they could and did win decisively. These are very old solutions to very old problems. The above data are recollected from the book "Thermopylae: Battle for the West" by Bradford Ernle. I enjoy his writing style and recommend his book wholeheartedly to anyone still willing and able to read paper books.

medieval tapestries look really good

You sort of glossed over the most honorable foot weapons of them all, the pike. :p Actually no joke, the popularity of the pike in the late middle ages seems to have been closely related to the practice of armored knights sometimes dismounting and fighting with their increasingly long lances in both hands like at the 1422 battle of Arbedo.

@tiberiu_nicolae

4 жыл бұрын

If the lance and the axe had a kid, that would be the pike.

@Gerle71

4 жыл бұрын

@@tiberiu_nicolae Pollaxe or halberd, maybe?

@LuisAldamiz

4 жыл бұрын

@@tiberiu_nicolae - That's a halberd, a pike is just a very long spear/lance, one used by infantry to fight against knights (halberds too but pikes are simpler).

There is one thing I do wonder though. The "Knight" in a lot of European languages seem to refer to as a horseman, French: chevalier, Spanish: caballero, German: ritter, Danish: Ridder, Swedish: riddare, Italian: cavaliere. Yet in English "cavalier" did not seem to have the same connotation as the armoured cavalryman we know and love and instead it's"Knight" whose origins seem to be from "cniht" Old English which is in turn from the German "Knecht" meaning servant or bondsman. Is there a reason for this? Does this imply a slight difference in the impression of what a "Knight" is in English culture compared to the others? Something like the szlachta for the Polish even though the literal term for a knight is "rycerz" based on the German "ritter".

@HCT-lq8xj

4 жыл бұрын

Its the same in France, Its just you can't access academic books. At first "miles" also implies that the knight is a servant and de facto excluded from nobility. They were waged servants, not fief holders.

@branibor6797

4 жыл бұрын

I also stumbled over this part of Matt's introduction. But at least the Anglo-Saxons are not the only ones to call their knightly class "servants" ... I think it's the same in Japanese, too. Samurai, earlier saburai, also means servant or follower.

@swietoslaw

4 жыл бұрын

Not really its servant in very specific way, he who serves his lord in feudal and pre feudal term, and btw early form of horse warrior in german was also called knecht . And the term knight itself is also vague becasue depending on region and time it could just meant someone who is obligate to serve in war on a horse, for example in Poland it could non gentry village owners or millers, and I think in Germany it was similar thing, and its all was more regulated in late medieval and latter

@ViktorBengtsson

4 жыл бұрын

Since I've spent most of today reading related parts of Wikipedia: The soldiers who were part of the king's household in Scandinavia and who then through the years became the close advisors and administrative staff were originally called housecarls and part of the king's own armed formation, the hird. Apparently "hird" and "hired" are related. When power was centralised, privileges codified and German merchants more prominent the mounted troops became "riddare". All this taken mostly from the Swedish context as I remember from English and Swedish Wikipedia today.

@LuisAldamiz

4 жыл бұрын

Probably it meant "retainer" originally. In the feudal relationship every vassal treats his superior as master, even the Duke to the King. It may be formal but it also implied ritual service such as serving meals in special occasions and such, so it's not an absurd evolution, a knight was in a sense a servant of his lord, a very privileged servant but he was meant to have service bond. Only kings and emperors were free from such "servitude", nominal as it might have been. There were no "citizens with equal rights" in the Middle Ages.

sweet. can you make a continuation video about the demise of knights. last knights, like knights of malta and knight being transformed into officer class around 1600

While it is true that a mace will be blocked by armor, it can still be a very integral part of defeating it. With the better plate armors, the issues was getting any damage through a gap - with a dagger, sword tip, really anything that was on hand. Now if you hammer someone on the helmet, there is a decent chance he might be stunned, fall over, that sort of thing. Wich would give you the perfect opportunity to stab them into a weakspot. The technique Mordhau was about turning a Two Handed sword into a makeshift mace, for exactly that reason. The warhammer is almost designed for it - having both a blunt and a pointy side, it can do both parts of the combo. Wrestling + Dagger can work too, of course. But you propably not the most ideal scenario Helbards were designed for trip+stab. Even the sword itself is telling: Cavalry across the ages tends towards curved swords. They are better optimized for cutting, wich is a attack type very common from horseback. They do however lack a tip to pierce into armor and cutting is overall easier negated by armor. The knights sword stayed straight, as the versatility was more important then better cutting performance.

@christopherg2347

4 жыл бұрын

However i would not put too much stock into paintings. Being rather expensive to produce (at least compared to a spear, axe or mace), it oculd be swords were seen as status symbols. In combat you use whatever weapon works. Or you die. "Honor" is more of a guideline, then a rule. So just because they were mostly depicted as using swords, does not mean they mostly used swords. It does still have the advantage of being very versatile - cutting, clubbing, poking - but that does not mean it was defaulted to. They might still be drawn as the most common weapon - but that might well be just "look at me, I am a knight that fights with a sword!"

the lance and sword combo seem to be the main thing throughout ancient and medieval history

How did armies manage the decision making for this stuff? Like if a polax is optimal for winning the battle but everyone can choose their own weapons, would you not see an excess of shields carried by people who would rather not get shot?

Matt, were maces used as a throwing weapon? As there seems to be evidence of one on the Bayeaux tapestry.

The origin of "knights" as citizens of status who can maintain a horse and related equipment goes at least back to the Greeks in 6c BC, who while famous for their Hoplites divided their military according to social status and thus ability to fund equipment. Hoplites were the second LOWEST status, with the Hippeis - knights - above them and the highest class being those that could be generals. The lowest class, Thetes, were labourers or rowers. You see a similar arrangement in Pre and Republican Roman society, with the Senatorial class commanding, the Equites/Equestrians - Knights - beneath them (a bit more complicated than that actually, but hey ho) followed by other social classes who would have differing levels of equipment and armour. At least until the Marian reforms that is.

Now that I think of it, _chevalier_ is most likely the origin for the Polish word _kawaler,_ which in modern times is used to describe someone who was awarded an order of high enough... well, order (high level military decoration, so to speak). In the older times, it was used to describe a knight, or a member of _kawaleria,_ the cavalry (nowadays it's _kawalerzysta_). All of those make sense. But the word _kawaler_ in modern times is used to describe (even in legal work)... a bachelor. A man that was never married is called the same name a knight would be. Weird. When I started writing this comment, I didn't know how that came to be, but now that I think of it, if it was used to describe members of a knightly order, that were to remain pure and unmarried it makes more sense now. Don't know why I'm writing this, but it came to my mind, so I thought I'd share it.

@George-cr6jq

4 жыл бұрын

Funny enough in romania we use the same word Cavaler and Cavalerie to mean the exact same things as in polish

Interesting video as always. Would there be a difference for English knights in terms of equipment seeing as they fought primarily (or at least quite a bit) on foot? Obviously the sword (or mace/axe) and shield still is used but would they prefer a different set of equipment for the slightly different role?

@apokos8871

4 жыл бұрын

as far as i've read, they got used to this after having to deal with the scotish pike and welsh bow situations. they wouldnt have gone that way if the were in mainland Europe. similar to how the byzantine knights were armed differently to westerners as they fought more mobile, lighter armored foes in Anatolia.

@markcarico546

4 жыл бұрын

@@apokos8871 that's not entirely accurate based on what I have read. For instance during the time of King Henry V they fought on foot quite a bit in france.

@apokos8871

4 жыл бұрын

@@markcarico546 yes i dont disagree with that, im saying that the reason they got used to this somewhat anorthodox method was because of the special circumstances in the island. if they didnt have that experience, they would (probably) fight like most continental armies, mostly on horse, rarely on foot. Henry the 5th was like 200 years after the wars with the scots and the welsh.

@SuperFunkmachine

4 жыл бұрын

There more likey to have pole weapons but most knights had a range of weapons to pick from. Even bits of armor were often inter changed, different visors an set ups with less or more armor.

Please do the same for common soldiers like town militia or seargents.

sticks with certain attachments

Hey Matt, how did the Knights/ riders switch certain weapons? Was throwing the lance down the only option?

Interesting how the arming-sword-paired-with-the-rondel dagger almost seems like a western counterpart to the katana-paired-with-wakizashi. In both cases, the user essentially has a choice of two side-arms depending on whether he engaging at standard sword-fighting or grappling-range. Similar to all the parallels that exist between HEMA and kenjutsu.

How common would it have been for weaponry to be used in later centuries? Example a 13th century sword to be used in the 15th, or into the 17th? If weapons were not damaged etc, were they used and maintained throughout or are most historic swords that exist today(not found archaeologically) just mothballed away in some aristocrat's armory until their more recent descendants decide to loan them out to museums or sell them (or other similar scenario)?

Which weapon would be the easiest or quickest to learn to use effectively for mounted combat? Knights were often claimed to have trained from childhood, but how long did it take the late 19th century armies to train a cavalryman?

One of your very best, with a really well chosen set of illustrations. Evidence that something positive can come out of social isolation. As I write: the remarkably small number of 2 fools among 1,300 viewers.

I know mordhau was sometimes used when fighting armoured opponents. Was there any modification to crossguards or pommels to make this more effective?

@scholagladiatoria

4 жыл бұрын

Yes there are some specialised armoured fighting swords with pointed hardened steel cross guards.

So many games have knights in melee using lances in a kind of spear and shield. Is there any case where poking with a lance from a stationary/slow moving horse would make more sense than using a sword?

2:24 Does anyone know what this painting is?

@aaronwebb1548

4 жыл бұрын

Oh man, this is gonna drive you absolutely mad. Good luck!

Brother love your knowledge , I have a question , what weapon would I need to beat very Large people?!?!? I'm not joking and would love your opinion and context!!! David vs Goliath !!! What would I need to defend or defeat a person as big as Goliath ?

His horse was a weapon. War horses were trained to bite and strike. The cheek muscles of intact stallions are dangerous; their leg muscles and hooves deadly.

Not Chain Mail but Chain Maile with an 'e' on the end and Plate Armour is also called Plate Maile sometimes.

@Messoppolis

4 жыл бұрын

Both Chain Maile and Plate Maile are Victorian misnomers. It's just mail(e) and plate. Obviously the names are now pervasive, but if you're wanting to get technical they're both wrong.

Matt in the tapestries and manuscript pictured here there were several scenes where a sword has cut deeply and obviously fatally into helmets. Another shows a knight cutting right through the shoulder that has at least chain mail and gambeson rather deeply again. I've never seen anyone try to duplicate a sword cleaving straight through a helmet. Is this an artist's depiction or was it realistic for a sword to cleave a helmet so? What good was the helmet??

Rocking those medieval gory pictures

Were there any manuscripts showing exercises to loosen a man stuck on your Lance on horseback like the 1907 Calvary sword practises

I had to look it up but yes, he really did say bollock daggers and yes, it really is because the guard looked like a pair of bollocks. That’s the most entertaining fact I’ve learnt today.

This feels like it could be a long list.

Charlmange knights made me remmber articles on myarmory about mamalukes, Where they had lance ,shield, bow, dagger, and sword and mace or axe, they were so versitle on the battlefield , i want your opinion on that many weapons, is it realistic ? I saw portraits and read how they were using it

@breaden4381

4 жыл бұрын

Byzantine cataphracts were armed in the same way. Most of the stuff was probably attached to the horse.

@mostafamohy8494

4 жыл бұрын

@@breaden4381 yeah its an easter european and middle eastern way of fighting

@fionafiona1146

4 жыл бұрын

@@breaden4381 It needn't even be, since they had two primery fields of battle, their own back yards (leaving everything cumbersome behind fortifications) and in campaigns with camp followers/knaves and temporary protection around the least convenient equipment for the day's plans.

@faramund9865

4 жыл бұрын

Breaden actually those images that Matt shows are made by the Carolingian Franks but they’re actually meant to be biblistic imagery and not an accurate representation of the Franks at that time necessarily. So it is likely that they actually draw from the Byzantians for these images. For example the helmets have never been found, despite the fact we have found many Carolingian swords. So what are they then? Well, images of what the Carolingians thought the Romans looked like.

@LuisAldamiz

4 жыл бұрын

Charles Martel's knights fought primarily on foot, as seen in the Battle of Tours, where the only cavalry was the Aquitanian force. They probably used a version of Roman legionary tactics (after all they were the more Romanized of all Germanics). In any case they were no good against a good Basque ambush.

In the age of plate, did armored soldiers who used onehanded weapons (like hammers and maces) use shields? Or did they leave the other hand available for grappling?

@scholagladiatoria

4 жыл бұрын

Both! You see both examples.

@GOAT-rl2uq

4 жыл бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria Thanks for the response!

Matt, it appears that in many illuminations,spears appear to be simply an iron rod with a spear point fashioned at one end. Is this true or just artistic license?

And yet many knights fought as footsoldiers.

What is the actual difference between a lance and a spear/pike? The short answer always seems to be that lances are intended to be used on horseback, but is there any particular design difference that makes them more suitable for that purpose?

@nicklab1927

4 жыл бұрын

Dedicated lances seems a bit thicker than infantryman's spear, and often had a bulge to stuck against the brestplate. I guess this shape would be impractical when used on foot. The extrathickness would be to ensure that one can transfer a huge force into the target before the lance bend or break.

At 8:00 what the hell is that weapon the angry looking, brass scale wearing knight is swinging? o_O Some kind of glaive ?

@nobbynoris

4 жыл бұрын

I suspect you'll find he's a foot soldier. Also, he may not be a knight, which was a social rank, just a random jobbing soldier who was able to afford the best armour, which makes him look like a knight. Basically the hundred Years War broke down the old traditionally-recognised 'medieval' martial conventions. Recruiters were desperate for new manpower and so had to take new recruits as and how they found them. Got a horse? Cavalry. Got a bow? Archers. Got a horse AND a sword? Excellent! (There are vague, enigmatic references from this era suggesting that mounted archers were deployed by the English. Certainly archers with horses came to be the mainstay of the English forces during much of this period. They still shot their arrows from foot, but their possession of horses meant that they could cover a lot of ground very quickly. They functioned as foragers and marauders. Guerrilla fighters basically). It was also during this time that it became the practise to supplement the slender numbers of the actual nobles - the 'knights'- with commoners who were equipped the same way. These common horsemen were termed 'men-at-arms'. They were armoured and equipped and fought exactly the same way as the knights, alongside them. But they were NOT knights. Furthermore, by the late 15th C it had become the practice to ride to a battle but to dismount and fight on foot. All those victories over the French had demonstrated to the English aristocracy that when archers were present, your horse just made you a bigger target. So your brass-scaled mo-fo may well be a foot-soldier, which would make the big pole-weapon more logical. So you need to treat a manuscript from the 14th or 15th c with caution. Armour and horse doth not a Knight make. By the latter 15th C it was customary for middle-class business people to keep a kit of plate armour or a brigandine tabard, plus sword and poleaxe, in their homes, in case they were summoned to turn out and fight for their king.

Knights stopped carrying shields, and starting pointing at things.

I think if i were a full armored knight on foot i would die in minutes by a bastard with a dagger or something like that.

Nice

What kind of sword can punch through plate?

Mustn't forget the Persian Cataphracts.

Hitty things, bashy things, and stabby things

At 3:48 there is an illustration of someone thrusting a sword clean through someone else's head, whilst they're wearing a helmet. A bit of artistic licence me thinks. Guess one has to be careful what one accepts as a reliable historical source, when it comes to the pictures in illustrated manuscripts. The poor bugger being stabbed in the face is more convincing though.

Hey Matt! Are you sick? I thought your voice was a little rough on this episode.

@Yimyimyimyim277

4 жыл бұрын

DGFTardin I was a little horse