The GAPS and vulnerability of MEDIEVAL ARMOR
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Armor was very prevalent in late medieval warfare and governed all warfare, and the development of weapons and tactics. But how did these impervious armored soldiers get wounded in combat?
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
Matt Easton's website:
www.matt-easto...
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-sw...
I feel we always forget the kinetic energy and get lost in the "does it penetrate?" and "does it dent?" questions. Your armor doesn't have to fail for the body within to fail. You can break bones, get massive bruises, internal damage, whiplash, neck injuries and concussions with your armor being perfectly intact.
This reminds me of discussions on armored vehicles as well. An armor penetrating round doesn’t have to go through all the armor outright to damage the tank and the crew. Enough kinetic force can weaken the armor, cause spalling, or shake up the crew so badly that they retreat.
You need to remember that if the plate doesn’t dent, the force is going to be spread across the whole plate. Don’t get me wrong, even if it doesn’t dent, it can still do damage, but it won’t be as much as you’d expect.
@@gabem3251 Very good point. Back when I was trained as a tank driver they told me that even if the projectile doesn’t penetrate it feels like you crashed a car into a tree. Hell, I even bumped my head badly when I drove over a ditch. Shit hurts.
@@Specter_1125 or it's going to glance which is the most likely result from a sword and the energy is going to be redirected.
Good point 👍
You can find some weird stories of deaths via "internal force," or "internal strikes," which don't require energy to really be focused on a small point.
There was a famous murder in San Francisco back in the 1870s where the cause of death was at first a mystery. None of the victims showed any signs of violence; neither bruises, punctures, nor abrasions.
To quote *The London Medical Record, 1873:*
"A man was hanged lately at San Francisco, according to the Philadelphia Medical Reporter, for murder of a peculiarly dangerous, and for a long time mysterious, nature. This is a sand-club, formed by filling an eel-skin with sand. When this instrument was first brought into use, the authorities were greatly puzzled by deaths, apparently from violence, yet no marks could be found on the outside of the body."
I suppose you could also say it left no dent or penetration but got the job done ;)
Some people: "There are all these gaps!"
Modern plate carrier and helmet: *Tries to fade into the background*
Having been a soldier, it makes absolute sense seeing soldiers of old not wearing bits of armour.
It's hard to do anything in it, hell, just wearing a pair of gloves is annoying. Taking off a helmet is a huge relief, you damn sure don't want to live in it if you don't want to
Truth, middle east temperature in a kevlar feels like it doubles the ambient heat.
Just compare to how most people couldn't even be bothered with wearing masks during the pandemic. And that's like *nothing* in comparison.
I've had to jog in chemical warfare gear. It's not entertaining.
@@iangrau-fay3604 And i think is much worse in tank crews
I think about sappers clearing mines and explosives devices with those big armours must fell like inside an oven
@@gonzalosanchezblanco6598
They have cooling devices
"there's a lot of stuff about the groin you need to know"
You didn't disappoint with the Eastonesque double entendres that followed. Superb!
I’m partly here for his double entendres. We don’t seem to lose our 14 year old schoolboy humour. Thankfully.
There isn't necessarily a direct opening, but you can get up underneath...
The universal truth of armour is that identical suits of armour provide your opponent far too much protection while simultaneously providing yourself far too little.
similar to this, I would really love a video on medieval battlefield medicine. not medicine on a broad level, but specifically how soldiers and fighters would tend to their most threatening traumatic injuries while still in the context of a battle
I talked to a combat surgeon once about how major injuries are handled even now and I can't even imagine it .
sewing, cauterising and really bad wraps.
Antiseptics were invented in the 19th century. =/
If you've been a soldier recently, say the last 20 years, you can probably relate to suffocation and dehydration in armour. It wasn't exactly fun running around in our "full kit", especially in middle Eastern heat, and ours was relatively flexible and maybe lighter than the medieval stuff.
Plenty of ways to die in armour.
I think it's safe to say that weight distribution of modern military kit (assuming at least a moderately loaded pack) is generally worse than the weight distribution of medieval armour like this. While modern militaries still try to centre a lot of the weight close around the torso, 30kg (for example) on your back is going to feel heavier than 30kg spread over the whole body. And modern military loadouts *can* far exceed the highest weights of medieval battlefield armours. But to speak to the overheating factor; I think it's definitely fair to say it'd be worse for these armours
@@tommeakin1732 I was going to mention something about that too. Some modern armour is pretty restrictive on breathing and really hangs on your shoulders.
But have you had a squire to carry your supplies?
@@DzinkyDzink in a way. We didn't usually have to carry rucksacks, the truck or humvee did that. Depends on the situation.
Tom is 100% correct, period armor is usually better distributed than plate carriers and a ruck.
I always thought of medieval art as something done by an unskilled child with way too many crayons. I have clearly been a victim of oversight. Those images are pretty amazing when someone explains hem to you. Thank you.
Like they drew them in full armour?
Oh, another thought about the soldiers wearing armor with nothing but their face exposed: in one on one combat, at least, the face is probably on of the hardest targets to hit, because we are wired to protect our faces. A person will be much faster in defending against an attack to their face, especially if they know that that is the biggest opening in their armor.
And your eyes are on your face, so you will see incoming attacks better there.
That's a great point. Matt said something similar a while ago; that you should focus on as much on what armour protects, as what it doesn't.
If two people are fighting with rapiers, the fact that one is wearing a cuirass is a massive advantage, despite it 'only' protecting the torso.
Its why I have always considered the Sallet to be like the best helmet if you have a gorget, You can quickly pull the pin and remove the visor.
It kind of seems like "the glass is half full" was the dominant mindset in the world of armor. Each piece of armor you put on is a whole class of attacks that you don't have to worry about as much.
Until Gunpowder came along
Imagine the Ancient Persians using Gunpowder Grenades and Muskets against the Greeks
I think if you want to survive an extended battle you are most likely to survive if you are armored enough to survive the initial engagement and at the same time lightly armored enough to not be completely exhausted before the battle is over.
This is at least what I get from the pictures shown in the video and thinking about it for a bit.
It is also obviously only a choice if you have too much armor to put on.
@@christiandauz3742
Incorrect . They were not using modern firearms , armour of the time could absorb small arms fire of their time well enough (varies highly on quality of the armour , but most armours could withstand pistols at close ranges and muskets at longer ranges) . Armour was proofed by shooting it with a pistol at a close range which is from where we get the term bulletproof . Problem was you could put a dozen dudes with firearms for the cost of one dude in quality armour . Even then armour was still used , for example in Eastern Europe mail was still used for armour well into 1600's . Naturally it did not protect them against firearms , but it will absorb a sabre blow perfectly well .
@@pp-wo1sd
Muskets didn't exist in the 1600s. That would be the Arquebus
An American Civil War musket is overkill
@@christiandauz3742
Matchlock muskets were starting to get adopted around the early 1600's , later in the century you even begin to see early versions of flintlock muskets , called firelocks .
You mentioned how it would be hard to fight against someone with different types of limb protection, but I imagine there are other advantages from the person selecting the armor. Someone with upper body coverage coverage could go for certain strikes safely that someone with lower body coverage could not, and vice versa.
When I would spar with my night, he would bait with his leg because he had very good armor there. If someone swung low, he would take the blow and go for the head and throat.
How to wound somebody wearing armor?
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries
" .. no ? seems like that would wound me.
Sticks and stones...
Have you tried "EMOTIONAL DAMAGE"? I heard it's very effective and bypasses physical protection.
It also helps if you can fight before physics is invented, and force your enemy to walk 20 miles, uphill both ways, on one foot because the other foot is running a business.
Not even the dankest shitposts can penetrate my safe space.
'YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER!'
@@Zagskrag Good
Situations when armour ist dangerous: Drowning.
The german emperor Frederic Barbarossa died while crossing a river in turkey (he was on crusade). He was not able to swim because of his heavy armour, and there are numerous cases throughout history where similar things happened.
Wasn't that more because he suffered a stroke rather than because of the armour ? If you want an example of a king drowning in armour a good example would be Sigismund of Luxembourg , king of Hungary and Croatia who drowned while fleeing from the battle of Mohacs
@@pp-wo1sd Louis II died at Mohacs. And it seems that there are conflicting reports about his death, anyway.
@@lscibor
Strange I was taught at school he was called Sigismund
I wonder if any of these artists had the slightest inkling that their work would be analyzed so carefully centuries later to tease out clues about how armor worked
Monk Clementius who hasn't left the abbey and it's 1000 acres in 40 years: Ahh yes, that's my lean my leanee lean that I've just imagined, and they'll be wearing the haircut that I made up, the bowl cut. They'll also be wearing my imaginary armor which is better than all real armor, which I've only seen once, when I was 8
Painting something that looks like complete bullshit seems a great way to not get paid to do anymore paintings.
LIke the speed-archer guy said, (paraphrasing) 'If someone pays me to do a drawing of an iPhone, I do a drawing of an iPhone. I don't fuck around making up a whole imaginary phone.'
Arguably, the armour is one of the few things about the battle that they could get right, given that you can sit down in front of a suit of armour and it's not going to move. The actual kinetic to-and-fro of a battle - even if it's seared into your memory from being there - is much harder to depict, especially in an era where they weren't exactly painting to a photo.
Could you make a video giving us a sense of the cost of each element of plate? I suspect the lack gauntlets often has a lot to do with the desire for more dexterity, but is it also the case that fingered gauntlets were particularly expensive in relation to the rest of an armour? Considering how complicated the hands are, my guess is such gauntlets could be some of the more complicated parts of armour to make
It could also just as likely be an artistic preference to paint hands instead of gauntlets.
And the same could be why so much art shows open or missing helmets, just like movies and TV usually make sure the face/head of main actors is fully visible as much as possible, to ensure an empathic connection with the audience.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I struggle with why it'd be harder to depict gauntleted hands over plain hands; but I do think you have a point with the faces. I think Matts made some great points about why you'd pick an open face helmet, but I'm not sure how great a guide the art is for this one point
@@tommeakin1732 I'm not saying it is harder, just that it may have been "the art style" in accepted use by "proper" artists.
Maybe the same "proper" artists who fought so hard against perspective and vanishing point horizons...
I don't think cost would come into it too much, at least for the people in good armor. If you could forgo some fluting or trim in favor of gauntlets, you would, unless you didn't want gauntlets. I think it comes down to dexterity, and the ability to do things like ride a horse, communicate via hand signals, steady yourself and others during the press of battle, and draw a sidearm at a moment's notice. I also don't imagine hands are a very common target in a battle, and I imagine it'd be annoying to try to take off your gauntlets and stow them when you're in the field, better to just not have them in the first place.
@@daaaah_whoosh Gauntlets are the one really good bit of armor I have. Mine are of the 1490's German sort with semi- finger form with the first two fingers together, the the 2nd two which affords more protection than single fingers but still allows dexterity. I don't find they encumber anything I want to do, though they noticeably slow your sword control and tire you faster - I imagine that more strength training would eliminate that concern though. Considering how easy it is to get your hands hit (especially if your form is not spot on) gauntlets are the most important bit of kit for me.
Having worn flack vests and soft body armor in 110 degree heat I understand why you need gaps
And, as American football demonstrates pretty clearly, armor doesn't do much to prevent you from simply being tackled--especially gang-tackled.
Pinned and pounded. Pinned and then something jabbed deep in a gap. Pinned and trampled.
(Which is why the vast majority of historical and ethnic wrestling styles emphasize [1] takedowns and [2] pins. Surprise surprise.)
True, but in football the players aren't swinging around swords. While tactically speaking if you are one in a group of say 6 people trying to tackle the knight, you are unlikely to be one of the people to get hit, but most people don't like taking those sort of chances, and would hesitate. So tackling a knight is nowhere near as easy as tackling a football player, both physically and psychologically speaking.
@@TheAsj97 In football the would-be tacklers aren't themselves holding shields and weapons with which to parry. One guy's parry being plenty enough of an opening for other guys to go for the tackle.
It ain't movie fantasy fight scenes with multiple attackers forced to fight one at a time.
Ever since I was a kid I was told that knights in full plate armour finished off a grounded similarly armoured opponent by pushing the arm over up over the face and going in through the arm pit. If you don't go through the ribs you can get the artery and then its good night sweet prince.
Great video. I just started to understand some doubts I had for battles like Agincourt
Back Edge Cut to the back of the leg is perfect.
Excellent video! As regards the Italian Knight in the red armor, as a chemistry major I would imagine that it was extra expensive armor that had been etched, perhaps with a gold chloride mixture. Could be done with gold or iodine or nitric acid and hydrochloric acid, combined with mercury with gold leaf. My hypothesis is that that plate armor was done much like a stained glass window, they took the gold chloride mixture and heated it in a very hot furnace to change the nano structure gold chloride to give it that red color permanently. It was well known among glass makers why not armorers as well.
This was an amazing presentation, thankyou 👍👍👍👍
21:55
Not only an Exposed Legs but also a THICC Dump Truck.
Matt, you have got to go and talk to your local Fire Brigade! I am a 56 year old New Yorker who has been a volunteer firefighter for 18 years (greatest thing I've ever done) How does this relate to medieval armor? Basic kit weighs about 60Lbs, very similar and that's without tools. Full coverage of the entire body is essential for safety, but what keeps fire out also keeps body heat in. the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) limits the amount off air you can take in. Similar to the vent holes in full plate armor. We have to climb hundred foot ladders and huge stair wells in this carrying tools. FYI our tools are similar to Medieval weapons, Pike Pole, spiked Axe, halogen= Poleaxe. etc. Take a piece of gear off and serious injury or die. Very similar to fighting in full plate armor, go check it out and talk to the Firefighters!
This is a very cool perspective which I don’t think people consider. Respect!
I have thought of that regarding modern military armour and kit as well as firefighting gear. Thank you for clearly making the point.
It's all well and good to say to attack gaps in armor. My experience though is that is easier said than done when they are actively trying to get you too.
Thank you for going back to medieval art references, that was very cool to have your annotations. Looking forward to the "Jack-chains" episode.
I really like those videos in which you go through historical art and comment. More please!
I would add "overhydration" (aka drowning) to the possible fatalities in armor without being in combat.
I love some of those paintings! Peak Medieval aesthetic.
The complaints about gaps in armor or open face armor is silly. For the longest time, soldiers not only didn't wear armor, they literally lined up and shot at each other without cover. My guess is that regardless of what type of armor or how much you had, the mentality of soldiers back then is the same as it is today: Don't get hit. And if you do, hopefully it will be where you have the most protection. Armor is about minimizing damage, not about invulnerability.
Great stuff! I like that the less armored gentleman in the 2nd example appears to be a bit older than his fully kitted compatriots. I like to think that he knows what works for him and sticks to it. If that means exposed thighs so be it! I wonder with archers how often they were firing from some sort of cover, be it waist high or higher, making lower armor far less important. Also, what was mail underpants doing to that cow? This man cannot be trusted.
That would be a fun kit to reconstruct.
Some historical context for the Swiss paintings: Basically during the time period shown (1300-1500) the Swiss were fighting a series of guerilla wars in order to first gain and then keep their independence from the house of Habsburg which where heading Austria for like a 1000 years. This might be why the Swiss levies were armored lightly, as they basically only could use looted armor as they lacked in general the funds to buy armor and weapons in big quantities.
Thanks for sharing 👍
I'm guessing one of the most important resources in a medieval battlefield is stamina. An unencumbered soldier can more easily stay with supporting units or withdraw from a failing position. All the armor in the world isn't going to save you if you're too tired to avoid being isolated from your allies. In a sense, wearing less armor might be a better defense against melee combatants than going in wearing full plate, if only because you can more consistently pick and choose your engagements.
If you are crossbowmen, archer or a gunner basically has no inventive to wear lower body armor cus projectile fire has lamost no chance to hit the limbs and it isn't your job to engge in close combant for long periods or time. Also, if you marching long distances, lower leg armor tires you out cus you lifting it everytime you walk.
Especially if you're not going to be able to pay ransom money to your capturers, then you don't want to get into the risky situations. Being able to get away may then be more important than taking to wounds in close combat
That's my view too. 2 min of all out combat is exhausting. Imagine doing that all day.
Thanks for sharing
I tip my hat off to you for your dedication. ;)
Regarding regular foot soldiers: In the Holy Roman Empire (and presumably everywhere else), the cities had to be able to raise contingents of foot soldiers. Which means that they had to provide basic arms and armour. These had to be replaced ever so often and we do have itineraries from the late Middle Ages. In terms of armour, the cities basically provided only simple sallets and breast plates. If you wanted more protection or customised protection, you had to bring your own.
Fascinating stuff. That Bolognese source sounds interesting. THanks for yet another excellent video Matt.
27:22 This art is fascinating. Those two guys at the back, to the left of the sword and buckler man; what do they have in their hands...? Almost looks like some kind of early chemical bomb
The amount of different weapons in that one was neat. You got a bow, crossbow, musket, grenade(?), sword and buckler, glaive, halberd, poleaxe, spears, cannons, and what might be a large mace in the middle.
Also the bowman's dick sword should be noted.
Perhaps they’re really early grenades?
Great video! Given what you’ve said before about shields and single-handed swords continuing to be used during the age of plate armour, how do you think combat would play out between a lightly armoured soldier using a sword and shield, against a man at arms / knight in full plate using a longsword?
For example, how would the sword and shield soldier try to get round the plate armour of the opponent without being able to half-sword (given the other hand is holding the shield)?
And would the soldier in full plate be likely to use two hands on the hilt of the longsword rather than half-swording, to make the most of the range advantage, and with a chance of wounding the opponent by thrusting through their lighter armour?
You forget the best way to wound them: say unfounded and mean things about their mothers.
She smells of elderberries!
In terms of suffocation, I've seen the theory that one reason for the dished shape of the ancient Greek aspis was to give a bit of room for the hoplite to breathe. The numbers of ranks involved - assuming period sources are roughly correct - would have lead to extreme pressures developing for those caught between two phalanxes, to the point that breathing would have been difficult.
"Imagine Boxer Shorts made of mail" some have to imagine that and some of us have two pair hanging in our closet, the second for when the first get's soiled, which happens a lot more then you'd think.
Well from experience you hit a guy hard with a blunt object they are generally getting wounded
Something that often is overlooked in these discussions about but is an important factor of what armor you wear to battle, is what can you afford? Obviously most men at arms or members of a lord's retinue / armed retainers will likely be equipped by their patron, but most common soldiers or even mercenaries are only going to have what they can afford! And of course not all lords were wealthy enough to hand out full plate harness to all their retainers, so even if you were man at arms you might be missing some pieces.
I was being physically attacked. I was fighting these two guys off. Then at one point I felt weak all over and couldn’t fight back. Afterwards in hospital and finding out my injuries. I think when my left forearm was broken was the time I went weak and couldn’t fight back. I don’t think many people can do much, let alone fight. When a serious injury is incurred. The last five hundred years have been the most peaceful. I’m really glad I was alive now not back then.
@@troublesome9654 I read this in Colin Wilson’s book, A Criminal History of Mankind. It’s not my statement.
I suspect the lack of leg protection may come down to just how much harder work it is.
Modern hikers often say that weight on the feet is 3 or 4 times as encumbering as weight in your backpack (ie. on the waist like much of medieval armour)
And if you consider how much of the time a medieval knight will spend walking or riding (using their legs) I can imagine them going "Nah I'll skip leg armour because I want to still be able to stand when I have to start fighting"
I've noticed people a few times mention about armour that it's "distributed throughout the body" with the implication that that makes it more agile, but I suspect that that's a double edged sword. It probably makes movements function more intuitively (because it doesn't alter your weight balance as much) but modern ergonomics strongly suggests that it's basically always best to carry weight on your hips when it comes to encumbrance.
Modern ballistic body armour makes similar concessions to utility
But it leans on advanced medicine and lower overall damage of modern attacking elements.
@@DzinkyDzink 'lower overall damage'? Have you seen what happens when a body is hit by even a fairly modest round (say 9mm)? I have and the damage was immense. I have to agree with the modern medicine bit though
@@dexterbelmain589 have you seen an axe slash?
@@DzinkyDzink not an axe...
I absolutely love this video. Great topic and analysis of sources 👏
In addition Jack was usually worn because one was in the process of building a sleeve so as they gathered Rings they were showing them onto their sleeve or leggings as is explained in an Archer external where he complains that he was not given enough chainmail to guard his arms and so he gathers it from the battlefield and being the least of The Archers he gathers last so rarely gets more than a dozen rings at a time the reply to his letter is a patchwork quilt will do fine in a rain and at the end of battle does not all look like they are wearing patchwork and that is why he was given the male splitterfork by the town's blacksmith as a lucky charm and reminded how a soldier builds his own luck before battle and that luck is a Fickle b**** give her not her do and she will do you in the next battle.
Interesting comment. Could use some punctuation
17:10 Beeing fully armored, except for the legs, also makes a lot of sense, if you are figthing from behind or inside of fortifications, e.g. from behind walls or through embrasures. At least in the beginning the attackers can only hit the top half of your body, when you shoot or throw things over the fortification. The situation, that attackers breach the fortification, if it happens at all, can take a very long time, in which you can overheat in full armor. Leaving the legs open, gives you at least a bit of ventilation and makes your movement along the walls faster.
Seems like the medieval mindset is, as someone else pointed out, that you don't want armor. It's expensive and requires maintenance and it also weighs you down and makes you susceptible to things like heat stroke. However, you get armor where you need it.
The general idea seems to be to get chest/body armor and a helmet - maybe because that's where an arrow volley is going to hit you.
I find it interesting the most economical way to armor a soldier is the same today because modern military's only seem to make due with a helmet and a plate carrier, which is literally just light protection for the head and torso. Probably because trama to those areas are much more fatal and harder to treat or recover from, its not like getting shot in the arm doesn't put you out of combat, but its far less likely to kill you.
Well that, and armoring the arms and legs these days is completely impractical if you want to be able to move and do your job.
@@andrews2990 Feels like the late medieval/early modern era is really the only time in history, at least Western history that limb armour is actually good enough to resist most of the weapons it was up against without overly restricting the wearer. And by the later part of that period cannons and firearms were already making it obsolete--it looks like by around the late 16th century/early Wars of Religion period most heavy cavalry and infantry aren't even bothering with plate armour limbs and going back to wearing mail or textile armour under cuirasses.
A very intresting topic as always mr easton, keep up the great work cheers
Gives "Mind the Gap" quite a different meaning.
Did you ever do that video about jack chain armor like you said you would? It seems like an easy enough video for you to make whenever you are scratching your head wondering about future video content.
Same genius who asks "why not build a plane like the black box". Same answer: it wouldn't be usable..
The figure with red armor and crown is obviously Vlad Dracul from Bram Stoker's Dracula directed by Francis Ford Coppola 1992!
I don't understand why it was so hard to interpret that...
21:10 I think the guy in the Blue brigandine has gilded armor on his harms.
I think the same- I've seen several images from that manuscript, and they often feature guys with yellow or brown armour plates. I think it's either supposed to be gilded armour or 'cuir boulli', but it might just be an artistic choice.
The figure in red starting at 5:15 is Emperor Trajan in the tapestry copy of the painting "The Justice of Trajan and Herkinbald" by Rogier van der Weyden, a Flemish painter. His red armor was originally depicted using gold cloth, which faded to red over time. Bit of a shame since red plate armor would have looked very nice!
You're quite wrong the gentleman in an orange shirt is wearing a sheer us underneath as you can see from his belt line Ergo this is an Archer with Cleaver in hand explaining the left-arm Jack and the right arm chain however I am quite confused that he does not have Jacked legs.
24:00. “The anonymous Bolognese sauce…”
… at least that’s what I heard the first time…
Astounding visuals, Matt! I notice that many archers have their sword scabbards mounted such that the swords hang straight down. That can be uncomfortable when on the march, no?
Great video! Super informative! I would love to hear more about anti armor weapons. Would especially love a video on the estoc
They set up this holy artifact on a tripod called a "camera", then armor no longer protects against sword slashes.
Exhaustion helps get the coup de grace in too!
Often the heavy armor provided a shield just like a tank for the infantry to breech and take a defensive position, both trying to avoid, or not, a crowded all out melee. How inglorious for a great knight to be stabbed in the arse by a nine yearold camp follower.
I'm no longer prime, and by the standards of the time perhaps entering old age. I can march, I can fight, but how far and how long depends a lot on how encumbered I am. Don't discount infirmity or lack of stamina as a reason why someone might opt for less armor.
Have you ever made a video about the weapons and armor of the battle during the 100 years war combat of the 30? Its a great microcosm about the effectiveness of armor and formation. And how one casualty leads to others. They fought for hours till someone died. Eventually one side lost 9 I believe and the other 5. But everyone was injured.
Great video!
I think it only makes sense that they wouldn't put maximum amount of armor on. Anyone who's ever done any hiking knows that carrying anything over an extensive period of time makes things really shitty. So the less you need to carry, the easier it is.
They weighted the pros and cons and decided that nope. I'd rather have less armor but more mobility, I'll be less fatigued, etc. etc.
The thumbnail says "how to wound", and my first thought was to leave the knight on _Regula I._
It seems to me that there was a huge amount of just personal preference in this topic. Everyone is gunna protect their vitals and head, but past that, seems like individuals would decide whether or not additional pieces were worth it to them in the protection/discomfort,lack of mobility trade off.
I wonder sometimes, especially when armored men are shown without protection for the hands or feet, if there were some stylistic liberties being taken by the artist. I feel like both of these areas are highly vulnerable and relatively less cumbersome to protect. I could see how painting some fashionable shoes might have been more aesthetically pleasing to the intended audience.
Dysentery is quite effective at finding gaps in the armour.
Really cool video!
And I would like to hear more about jack chains.
31:34 The red brigandine + plackart fellow above the chopped-into padded yellow guy, what is he wielding?? Is that a two-handed SPOON?! Very strange club.
Please do a Pt. 2: how to actually damage or kill the being inside the tin can.
I am SO late to finally watch all of this video! BUT, if no one's said it already😀😂, the final illustration Matt features is of the famous Portuguese battle of Aljubarrota in 1385. However, I think that particular illustration is probably from well into the following century. Maybe 1450, or so...
A big magnet on the end of a crain would be fun
As well as artistic sources, there are also manuscript and/or archaeological sources. A prime example of both with regards to bypassing armour is Richard III. More than a century earlier and only providing archaeological evidence is the Battle of Visby of 1361. The skeletons from that battle show evidence of defences such as shields having been circumvented.
*by ‘manuscript’ I meant ‘text manuscript’
at 16:09 the guys in pink/light red seems to have plate all over his body with clothes over it. Same goes for the legs of the guy in blue but not his arm were you see that it's only clothes and no plate under it.
Lol, I can't help it . When you say armor . I think magnet . A crain with a big electro magnet. It would have been a hilarious way to defend the castle.
Excited delirium would probably be a contributing factor while fighting in armor as well as positional asphyxia.
Also possibly attacks to the head is common as rain but in a crowd leg attacks more difficult? Everyone would know head chest and head are the sweet spot hits.
Assuming taking out of the fight fast is a main goal the opponent would know this too
The second to last image, the really vivid one. Two characters have some strange pinapple shaped things in their upraised arms. It looks like they are smoking, is this some kind of medieval grenade?
I mean, the simple fact that chainmail is still worn today is evidence of how effective it is.
Though nowadays it's usually worn either in professions like butchers, so they don't accidentally cut themselves, or by divers as protection against shark bites.
Heat issues are why so many Islamic or African armours have to be lighter than their European equivalents. There's no point surviving enemy blows if you're just going to die of heatstroke. The hotter it gets the more your armour needs to be not only light and ventilated, but capable of being taken on and off with rapidity, so that when the fighting is done, you can get out of it.
One of the reasons the Crusaders won the first battle of Ascalon was that they jumped the Egyptian army while it was on the march, and most of the Arab, Berber, and Turkic cavalry weren't wearing their armour. Which is also why at that same battle it was the Sudanese infantry, who didn't wear much armour, who were first into action on the Egyptian side and gave the Crusaders the most trouble.
Excellent point. I'm surprised not more commenters didn't bring this issue up.
And this video should have covered more about heat management, overheating, heat stroke, and issues of the weather impacting The wearing of multiple layers of heavy armor - especially in the desert [Remember the crusades anyone?] and the summertimes of Europe. I did fencing in college and we just wore a thin piece of linen cloth armkr and uess you practice outside during a cold winter day or inside sn air conditioned gym, you'd be sweating your butt off and you wouldn't be able to last more than 20 30 minutes of intense fighting.
Let's not forget the necessity of staying hydrated and drinking water. What I was an issue back in medieval times because as the army traveled to distant lands with unfamiliar bacteria dysentery was a very serious issue that armies had to deal with In fact I read many reports that Napoleon army suffered as much as 30% attrition due to dysenteria and disease as he tried crossing the mountain pass into Italy.
Unlike modern materials I doubt whatever materials were used to make the thick padding under chain then under plate and maybe a tabard during those medieval times did not have the "modern ability" to wick moisture away. They wore cotton and linen which soaked up moisture -sweat, rain, puddles, rain - any moisture and not only did they keep you super hot blocking airflow but it started to weigh you down with all that accumulated water in the material/ fabric And if you wore it long enough it would start to chaff and give you rot and fungal infections like "Swamp foot" a common problem for the soldiers during Vietnam because they marched in wet socks.
@@lillyanneserrelio2187 When it comes to layers of armour, one key difference between European and African style armours is that where Europeans typically wear their padding under their metal armour, Africans usually wear their padding on the outside. Quilted cotton coats were worn atop mail so that the sun wouldn't strike the metal directly and superheat it.
In the Muslim world, robes are worn atop mail and turbans are wrapped around helmets for the same reason. In a similar vein, a Mamluk Egyptian military treatise I've got recommends wearing your quilted vest in between your mail coat and your lamellar cuirass, not only for added padding, but for purposes of insulating yourself against both heat and cold. Same manual emphasizes the importance of being able to get in and out of your armour rapidly and unassisted due to climatic reasons.
On the opposite end from heat, you've got water as a problem. Swimming in full armour isn't an option. At Mansurah in 1221, al-Kamil of Ayyubid Egypt defeats the Fifth Crusade by opening the sluicegates on the Nile, flooding the Crusader camp, and then sending in a phalanx of naked Black African infantry, who are far more mobile in the manmade bog than the mailed Crusaders are and shatter their lines. The Seventh Crusade loses a lot of men crossing the Nile as well, and the Mamluk manual I've mentioned includes instructions on how to avoid drowning in armour. In the New World, the victories the Aztecs win over the Spaniards will likewise rely on water; at the Night of Sorrows, for instance, Cortes loses three quarters of his army failing to cross a canal while under attack by Aztec marines.
I think they did it wrong. Everyone should have had the perfect armor that being a metal ball with a sword strapped to the side so they would have had ultimate safety. Lol. It's a joke but both in industry and when it comes to looking at things in the past people like to focus on single items thinking that it's the total key to success. Everything involves limits and usually there are limited returns before cost outweigh benefits. Complete full plate would have hit it's maximum returns when in heavy contact and probably against large groups of unarmored troops. Probably in single combat there could be advantages to actually have less armor in some cases. So exposed face and less in the back. The same when high mobility was required.
Fire power is the same way. After some point you have to much firepower or offence to be able to actually go use it or to defend yourself.
Matt this is why we need you to tell people about context.
I like the fact that you have been doing more serious and technical stuff lately. Instead of just what was used but how it was used and the concept behind it.
People especially in places where raids were part of warfare often sacrificed armor for mobility. That is the whole concept of a light cavalry.
Great video, thank you. Is it possible to publish the credits for these interesting pictures, please?
I always wondered what a handful of strong farmers with a bunch of heavy staves could accomplish against armored enemies. My gut tells me they could pulverize them but I've never really heard of it happening...
Boxer shorts made of mail? I hope that came with padding underneath. That would otherwise involve a lot of pinching.
Mail always came with padding
i think often the reason not to wear full protection is price. and its reasonal to wear no gauntlets over ill fitting ones for handeling a weapon
In the image at 28:50 you can see the back of the breastplate peaking out from under the overcoat, so perhaps that guy is more heavily armored on top than we think.
Off topic but do you have a video talking about the decline in the effectiveness of the mounted knight? Im curious to know if there was a decisive moment or , if , despite reversals in battles with pikemen or pike blocks/ hedges, faith in the mounted knight somehow persisted longer ? A timeline for this is what I'm after. I know in the early 1300's a few battles did expose the limitations of the charging knight in armor. But I just read a book that described how knights in full armor were still a thing as late as the 1630's, which seems a bit of a stretch. Also, just how much did guns contribute the the end of the mounted knight in armor ? When I was a kid, pre-internet, it was often said that guns were decisive to ending that era. Now, we hear more about the Pike blocks and longbowmen as being the key factor. What European battle was the last one to use mounted armor knights in any significant number ? Thank you very much in advance.
Are there people who comment who question the effectiveness of armor against all forms of attacks, from all angles? As if they are under the assumption that the technology that existed in the medieval period accounted for armors total imperviousness? Honestly, if you need to question that in writing, aren’t you a little embarrassed at needing to ask such a thing that can be associated with you? Example: we know that during the plagues that existed in this time that there were plague doctors who walked around with bird beaked masks filled with flowers and herbs, because they figured that the bad smelling air of thousands of rotting humans was unpleasant. Are you going to seriously question the effectiveness of the plague doctors masks?
When this topic comes up I always wonder about how the ottomans fought against the knights and what they thought of plate harness. Mainly because I haven't read any English translations of ottoman accounts.
But we do know they fought a lot of knights. Not to mention the crusades but both Hungarians and Serbs had a core of knights who had gears of western knights and fought like them. In addition venetian chronicles mention the losses of precious condottieri were so high Venice resorted to using Balkan troops en masse instead of sending the condottieri to die in greater numbers than it was used to seeing in Italy.
So far so good but I just don't have the ground level accounts of ottoman troops dealing with the knights. In western accounts there's some suggestion they dealt with knights like how the English did but these are secondary sources and you know how they can be. And of course they seem to place heavy emphasis on European vassals who were knights, like the Serbs. I'm dubious of such claims. Above all, what did contemporaneous ottoman eye witnesses say about them? Wow I need one? Meh? Awesome but not for me?
Took me a second to realize he said “Bolognese source” and not “Bolognese sauce”
at 29:20 you said unprotected torso, but that looks to be the bottom of a backplate poking out under the orange....