From this we can postulate that a veteran warrior's dissapointment towards his allies would be directly proportional to how many friendly arrows he finds stuck to his shield after the battle.
This was completely new to me and I could not peel my eyes away for a second. Thank you for all the research and work you've put into this to bring this ancient technology to life! Great work!
I'm of Onondaga ancestry and it's really nice to see some experimental archaeology dealing with the weapons and armor of my larger group of people. As an aside, I used to play lacrosse and always thought that a lacrosse stick would be an excellent weapons for war and hunting. A skilled player can hit small targets at a great distance, and throw surprisingly heavy projectiles. From my own testing smooth rounded river rocks a little smaller than a tennis ball make for absolutely devastating projectiles.
A couple of points. In the 17th century, the Haudenosaunee typically deployed two types of warriors - heavy infantry with the heavy armor for close-in fighting ("First Rank"), and light infantry armed primarily with bows who wore only a type of simple roll-up frontal defense. Pole slings were also used by some North American tribes and these would hurl stones over the first rank in the way that your brother was demonstrating with the lacrosse stick.
A lot of good points about the back shield. Honestly, I think ALL of them are applicable and that's why they were so popular. They can protect the less experienced troops at the back when in formation, they can protect you from being surprised by flanking or ambush tactics and being shot down from behind, they protect you from overhand swings at the neck, they give you cover when moving and from friendly fire, they can be removed to form instant fortifications........it's literally the perfect device for smaller scale warfare on terrains where long range visibility is usually questionable and battles can often get a bit sketchy. We know from historical European accounts when routed and having backs exposed........is when MOST troops died. Retreat is often deadlier than combat. That back shield makes strategic retreats a lot safer which in an ambush style of warfare would probably be common. I love the concept.
As a person who is ethnicity, Mexican and partially decends from Aztecs and mayans I am infatuated with native armor and weapons and this series is very useful in learning that knowledge thank you titohtazqueh sir
Mine used to want to make armor from the things they killed. Ribcage armor, dire wolf skin armor. Cave bear armor. Orc skull armor. Players are the worst.
@@MalcolmPL I actually wanted to formally ask your permission too. I am writing an RPG setting that borrows heavily from remixing less known bits of history in a fantasy setting, and would benefit greatly by having wooden armor. Do you think 'Wood Slat Armor' would be a good culture-neutral name for this type of armor?
something that others might have alreadt commented on but seems useful to me is that the backplate essentially helps replace shoulder plates to some extent. any overhead swing that would target the head/shoulders would have to be close enough range such as to not overswing and hit the back plate rather than the intended target, this might also be part of why weaponry favoured things like axes and maces rather than longer weapon designs that might be more likely to overswing into the backplate.
Its hard to describe how interesting your videos are. I have never once thought of the importance of a back shield. I have always assumed it was merely a means of carrying equipment. Just imagining someone making it to a wall and fastening his shield to his back so he does not get hit by friendly arrows sounds incredibly plausible. this way he has hands are free unless he is the first up the ladder. Interesting thought experiment. I wish you the best of luck in your experiments and I hope you enjoy your work.
Cheers. I hadn’t thought about it in a medieval context, that makes a lot of sense. Climbing a ladder is a situation in which suppressing fire would be particularly useful.
Well thought out. I had been thinking about the military use of lacrosse sticks as well. It seems like an ideal tool to fling stones en masse, even ones you find on the spot.
Canadians in the Great War used them to lob grenades, so yeah, they are provably fit for military purpose. There are also cultural connections, the Mohawk name for lacrosse translates as “the little brother of war,” and the game was used as a form of military training, so it would make sense if something like the lacrosse stick was used as a weapon.
On the back shield, apologies if this is an ignorant observation but you're also carrying effectively a sled. The use of the backshield outside of combat seems obvious for hauling a person, an animal or anything else you need to get back home. It would be surprising if this inspired tales of this or that backshield was so strong it carried a whole moose home or took a thousand blows. Also bending at the waist makes the backshield a sloped surface which increased the deflection chance of things hitting it exponentially. Same for the shingaurds, their slat design makes them easily into snow shoes. In another video you mention the skirt piece making climbing difficult. A cut in the middle to make it two pieces that split for each thigh makes sense and could easily be merged by a knot when needed. Really awesome videos and thank you for doing everything you do.
I had never before been introduced to the back shield of any culture. In your last video, I was surprised to see how it's a deflection to head assault from the front. , Or even the back. Wow, very cool alternative to a helmet with visual problems, weight, etc
Related to what you were saying about shielding from projectiles and why that’s better than just a helmet - If the primary melee weapons were clubs and axes, a helmet certainly is useful, but a strong hit from a club or heavy axe could still be lethal or debilitating through a helmet. Even with that wooden helmet, being hit in the back of the head with a club could definitely concuss someone. With the back-shield, as you pointed out, it keeps blows of any kid from landing on the head. If you were surrounded or had to turn around, this shield could really increase your chances of survival.
I have learned more about Kanienkeha history on this channel than ever before just trying to learn and research by myself. Thank you for the time you put in, you’re helping our culture everyday you post 👍🏼
the inuit back sheilds can often also be pulled around you like acloak almost to protect face by looks of it milanian crossbow men also used backsheilds and massed crossbow ranks you can use a bow with a back shield and turn your back to enemy if they return fire also its about the only way to carry a decent sized shield and use a bow at same that i know of
I just wanted to say that this reasoned historical investigation into First Nation armor and culture is incredible and I have a new found respect for this stuff. Really cool.
I was playing as the Iroquois in Civ 5 and was wondering if they wore armor then I get your videos in my feed. Thanks for the comfy informative vid brother.
An excellent analysis! I've studied warfare & siege tactics in the Middle Ages, and you are quite right about the archers (and slingers!) moving up to the forefront while the enemy is still at range. The only time you'd get effective rows of archers one behind the next is if they have high ground under & behind themselves and can stand in layers on the slope (as if on performance risers), specifically with a clear line of sight past the people in front of them. Randomly loosing a whole bunch of arrows is only effective for a short period of time; first it requires the enemy to be suitably clumped up to have a good chance of hitting anyone...and secondly, either the enemy will retreat out of range, or they will spread out in their approach to make it that much harder to inflict widespread damage with random shots.
@@MalcolmPL yeah, but also beacause i have seen it mostly on native american armor,and because i am a big fan of shields in general. The fighter-artilleryman combo here presented is a very interesting mechanic to implement in an RPG.
Having watched and enjoyed this whole miniseries about your armour i figured i should comment here as well, to maybe boost the algorithm a bit! The idea makes a lot of sense, would be interesting to see if it has similar explanations in the siberian or similar traditions. Or if they focus on some other useful aspect.
I was told that the winged armor of eastern siberia were so that slingers could throw over your head safely. That's where I got the initial idea in the first place. Also. Though I appreciate the sentiment, Commenting doesn't really seem to help the algorithm. I think that's a myth. I've had videos that do well with hardly any comments and the opposite.
This was an excellent series of videos, presented in a clear and informative way. I appreciate you taking the time to share the process and findings on an underappreciated (and honestly hard to rigorously research) part of history.
Fascinating videos! Thank you for making these! I gotta say that the intimidation factor is definitely a big part of it. You DO look more imposing! Just putting it on makes it look like you know what you're doing and that you mean business. I'd be curious to see you try some sparring in this!
A thought that struck me during this video is when you referred, in an earlier video, to the men wearing them as champions or veterans. To my mind that adds to the idea of the back shield being used to protect the ones in the behind the front row (and vice versa). It would take a fair amount of courage to stand there as the enemy attacks you, even as you fight back. That could be a sign of courage and experience, being able to take the oncoming enemy 'fire' and be skilled enough not to flinch while defending yourself. Anyway, it's just a vague thought on my part.
Interesting video and I think you got it right for the Iroquois back shield. But there has to be another reason to use back shields that has nothing to do with formation fighting. You've shown the scythian backshield a couple of times but it has some differences that make it not suitable for the use you've described. Because it doesn't protect the head and also doesn't protect the lower back but mostly the shoulder area. Also the scythians were equestrian and there are depictions of this back shield on horseback.
I’m always amazed by the depth of understanding when someone from a culture or region explains or theorizes their own history. But it does make more sense than a foreigner so-called expert filtering through their own regional understanding. I see the same thing when I watch a Christian speaker or professor who converted from either Judaism or Islam. They have a much better understanding of the culture in which the texts were written.
The tufts of corn stalk in the illustration also provide added cover and block line of sight for opponents while those close can easily see around. The only question with this though is this a pullover from older battles where more fighters were involved. By the time of European Contact in the Northeast they were doing small battles, like from video 1 of say 100 each, I am assuming due to concentrates in field-able fighters.
I am interested in your opinion on two option for the skirt. One is a way to sling it over the back when moving quickly some distance is needed. The second is a way to wear it that allows turning it to the rear for easy movement as with a belt. Fascinating stuff. This looks a little bit familiar. Maybe from Central or South America, or the Pacific Islands that have no metals at all.
This video series on Iroquois armor makes me rethink and re-imagine the viking attempt at colonizing Newfoundland. While I previously always thought vikings being swarmed by disorganized bands of stereotypically half-naked native warriors overwhelming them by sheer force of numbers, I am realizing that the vikings were probably worse off than that alone. Of course I cannot speak to what the tribes they encountered used as armor or even if they used any, but I am picturing now battle lines of disciplined native warriors supported by swarms of younger warriors, wearing armor that was effective enough against swords and axes, if not spears, AND they outnumbered the viking colonists that were comparatively just civilians. The viking colonists were not only overcome, they must have been squashed like bugs. The irony is that the natives successfully defending their homeland and driving the vikings out changed the course of history. They could have been more slowly exposed to european sicknesses, perhaps not losing quite as many of their people due to disease. Perhaps they might even have traded knowledge like iron working and husbandry of european animals in exchange for their native agricultural plants. This could have rapidly transformed the entire american continent into a much more formidable force that might even have been able to resist european colonization.
Just a small point I would like to make. Viking basically means pirate. If they were Vikings then they were well armed for the time. If they were Scandinavian explorers then thats a different story.
@@MalcolmPL Are you sure? Stone age peoples are famous for hit and run tactics, and retreating unless the odds are in their favour. That tactic is a winning one right up until the invention of iron, which is a long way down the tech tree of humanity. And then around the 5th right up until the 12th century it became effective again.
@@dr.lexwinter8604 I don't think you would use this armor for a hit and run raid. I think this is battlefield armor. The apron hinders the legs a little and the back shield catches wind, I'm a little bit slower in this. Besides that, the back shield makes it more awkward to move through dense underbrush. Also, in Champlain's account of the battle in 1609, he describes them as casting aside their armor to better flee.
I wonder if to some degree the back plate might have been useful in hunting and scouting as well. A lone individual or small party might benefit greatly from it in several ways. It could make a good laying surface or makeshift cover for camping. It could be used in part to port goods or injured people. It would provide some defense from being leaped on by a predator (there were a lot more large predators on the continent back then). If absolutely necessary to survive, parts of it could even make good kindling and starter. Or to fashion a splint for a broken limb.
I imagine that, possibly, in a smaller fight the back-shields of the first rank would also allow the second rank to stand back a little and quickly respond to any gaps that develop (either due to the movement of individual warriors, casualties, or as an intentional tactic) with projectiles without having to worry about hurting people on their side quite so much, and perhaps to do likewise to anyone trying to get around your first rank. No idea whether there's any evidence for that, just a thought.
I'm forwarding your stuff to my Mi'kmaq friend, he loves this stuff. As do I. Subbed. Also, it's clear that you've researched some medieval history, or maybe you're familiar with a lot of the big names on TH-cam who talk about this stuff. The short video with the rush light makes me think you've at least seen the video by Modern History TV, though that could be coincidence.
Cheers. Recommending the channel helps a lot, and I could do with more native viewers. Re, medieval history. I’ve done extensive research on the British dark ages, and a fair bit of later periods. I used to be right into that all that stuff. Still am to some extent. Re, youtube. You’re right about mhtv, I thought it was a neat bit of tech and wanted to try it, and I’ve also watched videos by all the big names at one point or another.
@@MalcolmPL Well, if you're looking for something from the Algonquian East, there's the Penobscot bow to inspect. It's in a similar position to the gunstock warclub, in that there's ambiguity of whether it existed prior to European settlement. But it's an interesting design - it apparently behaves similarly to a modern compound bow in how it becomes easier to draw after a point (though I haven't handled it myself). Of course, no harm if you can't make it or just want to stick to Iroquian stuff.
I agree, those are neat. But I won’t be covering them as I have no experience with them aside from seeing pictures online, and I don’t think I’m a skilled enough bowyer to make my own.
I was coming to a similar conclusion. If you have a dense formation of warriors, the backplates serve as a screen to cover and obscure the warriors shooting arrows or throwing projectiles. Completely different from skirmishers in antiquity, meant to harass the enemy as well as mask the movements of their army's formations. This adds credence to another point you made in part 2, that the spear was not at all a common weapon used in combat. Meaning, it's more important to get your bowmen and throwers as close to the enemy as you can. I'm thinking of it as a more offensive/mobile version of the Roman square formation, except instead of defending against Cavalry, it's to attack.
Thank-you for the insight of your work with this armor! It is both fascinating for speciation in regards to historical use and for its possible implementation into game systems. If you find time I would like to know what improvements you feel would naturally be made to this armor?
There isn't much I would change. If I was improving this armor, I would shape the breastplate differently, so that the corners would come up to cover my collarbone. I would also add a couple of panels for the side of my torso. I would make the wings a couple inches wider, and the apron a couple inches longer. I would add cheek plates to the helmet. I would add vambraces and rerebraces. I might also use leather strips to bind the breastplate rather than plant cords.
Hi, I am intrigued by the whole thought of lacrosse, being like a ritualized sort of warfare, and that the original purpose was to throw rocks at your enemies
I would never have thought of that. The archers being shielded by shields carried by someone else. Thats clever. Possibly the archers could have safely fired from gaps between the shields carried by the front rank. Or perhaps the lacrosse stone throwers.?
That's a possibility, but I think it's a little less likely than over the shoulder, as there's a higher chance of my unarmored arms being in the way. But it would give the advantage of a direct shot.
@@MalcolmPL I realize this is a few years old now, but just a thought: If the hand to hand combat is mostly done with clubs then the 'killing strikes' are generally to either the head or spine, by the look of it the backplate would work well protecting from such a strike. If the shield was a bit higher (the islander ones appear to extend well above the head) it should also help protect against downward head strikes id think.
Thank you for a great series. I was really wondering about the back plate as it seemed bizarre to me. I did wonder if you knew why the other cultures had used them. They do seem designed to prevent rear attack but that made no sense until you explained that it was protection from your own troops. It seems to me, likely then, that the armoured line would move forward and engage in melee whilst the rear lines were throwing everything they had. The rear lines could not have been too far back because there is no protection to the buttocks or rear of legs. That said, is it possible a rear skirt was a separate skirt.
Amazingly, there were generals stupid enough to employ the melee in front archers in back tactic - and got a lot of their warriors shot! I’ve only found European sources on this, but still relevant I think.
Mixed formation tactics are actually fairly common in Europe and Eurasia at least, not being familiar with Africa or SEA. Tercios and Pike and Shot Warfare is probably the most well known examples, where Arquebusiers would be frequently embedded in the formation of pikes, advancing to take shots (while still within the pikes or behind the first rank perhaps) to allow the formation to statically defend against cavalry charges while maintaining a steady stream of fire. In an early medieval context, we know the Romans made frequent (if not exclusive) use of mixed formation tactics with their phalanxes from at least the 6th century onwards, with there being front ranks and file edges of experienced and well armed spearmen, with lesser equipped men behind them, and in the center of the phalanx would be men outfitted as ranged troops, loosing javelins, arrows, darts, or even slinging stones over the front ranks/files of spearmen. The Abbasids likely modeled this very closely, with the Romans potentially drawing this style of fighting from them. In China there is also almost exclusive used of mixed formations of troops, with ranged troops existing on the outside of formations while the core of units is comprised of missile troops to engage/harass while the front rankers taker the brunt of melee. Structure of files also influences the potential of striking a buddy's head as well, with alternating files possibly removing this risk.
I agree, but not in the way depicted in video games where both components are fighting at the same time. It was my understanding that in a pike and shot formation would not both be fighting at the same time. Either the pikes are seeing off cavalry, and the muskets are silent for fear of blowing off your buddy's head. Or the muskets are firing, and the pikes are crouched, not doing much. Re, the romans, it was my understanding that the slingers, velites, and other skirmishers would be in front of the formation during the initial stages to harrass, then retreat behind when it fell to hand to hand, not to continue throwing stones, but to act as reserves to plug any gaps. Re, formation structure. I disagree. Heads move around a lot in a fight. And even among masters, bows javelins and slings have some degree of variation. Far more so if these skirmishers are the less experienced warriors. You would have to have a very loose formation to have any kind of confidence.
@@MalcolmPL Different Romans, I don't like the term "Byzantine" but to specifically refer to the Eastern Roman Empire and Arab tactics, they'd long shifted from the style of Legionaires to one of predominantly spearmen, with both mixed type of spears (different weights and sizes based on target), missile troops in the center, and being a mostly static form of infantry combat. The Chinese were also similar to this in many dynasties, mixed formations I'd say overall aren't very aggressive formations that actively pursue and engage targets (like Legionaries for example, or Swiss Pikes) but would castle up on the field to act as an anvil to the cavalry's hammer (or in the case of the Ming Dynasty, simply fire until the enemy died or left). I don't know specifically _how_ the Greek Romans fired bows or javelins over the heads of spearmen without potentially injuring their comrades, but it comes up in mention of Roman military treatises (highly recommend searching Libgen for some, like the Strategikon, Taktika of Leo the Wise, Three Byzantine Military Treatises, among others). Going from Roman text though, these formations were actually quite dense (being focused on static defense) with the purpose of the inner ranks being skirmishers is so they participate in the battle in some manner, while also getting experience in a safe manner so they wouldn't die. In regards to spacing in formations though there is a good examples in treatises of 16th-17th century pike and short warfare, where formations had different densities based on the combat taking place and would shift based on the fighting going on. When early modern European pikes (although this is just generalizing, tactics varied between regions) marched the men would be very loosely spaced, tightening somewhat once in battle, and forming a very dense formation if they came under attack by cavalry or surrounded. This is probably how gunners had the means to maneuver, simply stepping through ranks spaced out by more than 3 feet to shoot in between the shoulders of men, or advance within range of the pikes. The Eastern Romans though I can only hypothesize how they did it, as the authors seem to imply they simply shot over the heads of the front ranks. Which is perfectly viable with javelins safely, but not bows.
Regarding the point with the warriors possibly training themselves to not flinch when things were thrown at them ... Maybe that was the point of the many torturous endurance and pain rituals in native culture, and the expectation of stoicism towards pain?
archery with a back shield. best protection is to turn as far away from the enemy as is possible when drawing or loading. as some siberian folk used to do
Have you considered testing the effectiveness of the back shield in the context that the armored warrior, as well as his opponents, use bows as their primary weapon? When shooting a bow your torso is turned sideways so that one shoulder is facing towards your target. While in the shooting position your left (back) side of your body could be left terribly exposed to an attack from this direction. (Assuming you're right-handed). It's also instinctive to flinch and turn away from an incoming projectile which exposes more or your back and neck. Different context, but early samurai were primarily mounted archers. Their armor developed large shoulder guards to serve as a sort of shield in order to free up both their hands to use their bows but still provide some protection to their upper body. Your thoughts?
I thought about that. Some demonstrations are included in part 2. But assuming you've already seen that, let me give some proper answers. The back shield doesn't work as a shield for the second rank if the wearer is shooting a bow in a normal archery stance. In order for it to work as described, you would have to hold the bow forward, which would limit your draw length and accuracy. If you aren't trying to shield the back rank, the wings of the armor work quite well at protecting you, except when at full draw. Useful for example when reloading. This sort of, (though not entirely) fills the same role as the samurai shoulder guards. The exposed portion under the arm when at full draw is something I'm uncertain about. It is a significant weakness, and I'm tempted to add an additional plate to cover the gap, as this would make a lot of sense to me. But as "illustrations of Algonquin dress," is my primary reference, and such a plate is not shown due to the artist's perspective, I have not done so.
@@MalcolmPL I agree that the gap under the arm is a difficult one to explain. Perhaps it may be a matter of mobility? I guess only further tests will shed some more light? It's great to see that someone is actually applying some experimental archeology to Native American warfare. Definitely an under-researched topic. Keep up the good work!
@@Honeybadger_525 I think it's likely there was something under the arm. Pacific northwestern armors have side panels, as does the armor depicted on the conquering warrior pipe head. I did a test where I crudely attached one of my destructive test panels under the arm, it didn't interfere much.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah this makes sense. If I were fighting in melee I would rather not have the back shield at all, since I'm never going to turn my back (no warrior in any culture would). The back shield wrapping around to cover the shoulders and arms only makes sense if you are protecting from rear attack as it does slightly impede fighting efficiency but offers no frontal protection. If the back shield is protecting me from my troops missiles it makes sense to protect my shoulders and arms and is a fair trade off since those missiles are helping me. The other thing That you may have considered is that the armour is only to defend from missiles , so that you can get to the enemy lines (which makes the arm pit issue mute). The reason I think this is that its odd to protect the shins for non mounted warriors. You are probably aware that at the battle of Hastings 1066 they used big kite shields on horse back to protect the lower leg since it was generally unarmoured. It strikes me as odd that shin protection was necessary for melee with relatively short weapons. But would make sense against missiles. Also the helmet shape is similar to what European armies used to withstand missile attack whilst advancing. Tilt the head forward to protect the face and the helmet is the perfect shape for missiles to glance off.
I can also see that the back shield can also be used as a mobile fortification you suggest in the prior video and if the heavy infantrymen kneeled holding the shield to the ground while the archers duck low while reading their next shot then popping over for a clear shot. Maybe even you had two lines of heavy infantrymen, one kneeling with the back shields in front and the second line on their backs for maximum protection of all the warriors in a fixed defensive line.
Back shield sort of reminds me of how samurai shoulder armor, (Especially early Yoroi) can move to protect their backs from arrows. Usually enemies than allies but still.
Oh an japanese Tate (Handheld or moveable wall) shields, there are illustrations and manuals that show them strapping it to their backs during battle similar to this.
unlikely. If they were effective then why not cover the entire top of the back shield with them. They may though, have served as identifiers. So from behind I could tell who was in front of me. Its possible the best throwers/archers were assigned to the best melee fighters. At least if I was in charge, thats what I would do.
Romans would set up ranks the other way around. Veterans in the back. A Still neck protection on helmets was pretty elaborate. I feel it must be for the same reason. And Back shield = 4 free hands. Brilliant deduction.
The old Roman system seems designed for producing more veterans quickly. But note that their front ranks were still heavily armed and armored; if you couldn't afford that, then either you were a skirmisher (velites) or simply not going to war at all. And the front rank had its own missile weapons in javelins, before going to short sword + giant shield melee.
This is incredibly interesting. Thank you for making this. I've been using your videos (such as the antler armor test video) to help me write up rules for equipment made from varius materials, for my Dungeons & Dragons group, and this is an incredibly inspiring miniseries of videos! I'll definitely be writing up rules for this kind of armor. If I had to give it a culturally neutral name, what would you suggest? It's somewhat reminiscent of lamellar or splint, but that wouldn't be an accurate term for it at all, I feel.
Have you considered that the front rank of armoured warriors could have kneeled to allow the ranged junior warriors to shoot? That way the front rank become a mobile pavise that can quickly stand to provide a fully armoured wall if necessary.
I found it interesting that inuits had battle armor. Who did they primarily fight with? Other Native American tribes? Siberians? Vikings? Did Mongols go that far North?
In Turkish archery there is a technique where an archer draws the bow overhead shooting down allowing him to shoot an enemy at the bottom of a wall without leaning over the edge and exposing himself. Could an overhead draw be used for shooting over these back plates?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to. A quick google search is unhelpful. If I’m thinking of the right thing, then I suppose it’s possible. I don’t see any reason why not.
Those closed battle formation with slingers, archers and dart throwers close behind seem to have been common in micronesia, eastern siberia and northern America, this was not common in most cultures hence the lack of backsheilds. There is good russian accounts of conbat with alaskan and siberian natives using these tight formations. Needless to say russian muskets made easy work of these and the natives quickly aquited guns in many areas of kamchatka and chuchotka, magadan ect but they still persisted local conflicts till the late 19th century in isolated places
Given that the back shield is curved, attached to you, and behind you, wouldn’t it also direct projectiles towards your head/back as it intercepts them? In this specific scenario it’s appears to be a hindrance.
From the sounds of this the back shield should be made from material as durable as the rest of the armour as it's going to to be protecting you more then I think you thought I realise that this adds wait I would be interested to see how much
If you dont mind me asking, what are your thoughts on the descriptions in the Book of Mormon? I know shad did a brief video on it, but most of its content, is supposed to be on the native people of America, the stuff you talk about is definitely fascinating when I think about the war chapters in Alma.
As a Native, a skeptic and a historian. I have a very low opinion of the book of mormon. The book is not based on history. I don't want to offend anyone more than necessary, so let's leave it at that.
It would be amazing if this was the origin of the lacrosse stick. Also for a young man skilled in it's use, it could easily be used to take small game.
According to Sir John Smythe's 1594 military manual, English archers used broad formations of up to 7-8 ranks deep that allowed all the archers to shoot, assuming their targets were at a reasonable distance away. The text specifically mentions shooting "ouer the heads of the rank or ranks before them." So it probably was done in that context, of formations of archers alone, unless that was pure theory on Smythe's part. Also Baron Marbot's account of facing Russian horse archers in the early 19th century mentions how they had to shoot their arrows at a high angle to avoid hitting friendlies in front: "With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. This system does not permit any accurate aim, and nine tenths of the arrows miss their target. Those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world’s least dangerous troops." That seems to also be the case of missile troops operating alone, not the scenario of archers behind soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand combat. I'm curious if there are any sources that address the question of what archers & other shot did in close combat. I'll keep any eye out. I recall various 16th-century Western European military writers debated the military of mixing arquebusiers/musketeers in with pikers, with some strongly discouraging this practice.
The Almoravid Berbers used a combined arms formation in which the front rank of spearmen knelt. This way they could better brace to receive a cavalry charge and cover their entire bodies with their four to four and a half foot shields while the rank behind them hurled javelins at the oncoming opponent. Archers, cavalry, and camelry were positioned in the rear, and could move through gaps in the formation that the line troops were trained to open as needed.
you mentioned the lacrosse stick being good at tossing things I suppose like rocks and maybe that was the original purpose. You probably know better than I but wasn't the game whose name I have no idea how to pronounce that lacrosse descends from originally used as a war training exercise of sorts? If that is so that it would make sense that it's not just about tactics being taught on a battlefield but also how to use and be accurate with a stick to throw things. It's not too dissimilar from something like a sling staff which we know were used as weapons. Ella acrostic probably has shorter range than a sling staff but much greater accuracy.
The little brother of war. Teaches teamwork, tactics, situational awareness, athleticism, and the ability to take blows and keep going. Is it that far fetched that it could also teach weapon skills?
@@MalcolmPL no, not at all. It certainly teaches accuracy, quickness g the ability to do both in jostling chaos...sounds a lot like war in that period to me.
@@MalcolmPL It's not known at the current time. Rod and slat armor would be unlikely to show up in the archeological record. It is known from archaeological excavations that the bow and arrow was used extensively in warfare at the Neolithic, contrary to the assertion by Marija Gimbutas that early European farmers were peaceful before the arrival of the early Indo-European speakers (who, BTW, were related in some way to Native Americans). I've forwarded links to your videos to a European archaeologist.
From this we can postulate that a veteran warrior's dissapointment towards his allies would be directly proportional to how many friendly arrows he finds stuck to his shield after the battle.
Ha.
Have you ever played Chivalry? It's more true than you think :P (in game re-enactment:P)
This was completely new to me and I could not peel my eyes away for a second. Thank you for all the research and work you've put into this to bring this ancient technology to life! Great work!
Thanks! It’s good to be appreciated.
This is fantastic experimental archaeology. Your last point about battlements makes total sense. The backshield turns you into a walking pavise
A walking pavise with a big club.
Walk pavisely and carry a big stick
I'm of Onondaga ancestry and it's really nice to see some experimental archaeology dealing with the weapons and armor of my larger group of people.
As an aside, I used to play lacrosse and always thought that a lacrosse stick would be an excellent weapons for war and hunting. A skilled player can hit small targets at a great distance, and throw surprisingly heavy projectiles. From my own testing smooth rounded river rocks a little smaller than a tennis ball make for absolutely devastating projectiles.
A couple of points. In the 17th century, the Haudenosaunee typically deployed two types of warriors - heavy infantry with the heavy armor for close-in fighting ("First Rank"), and light infantry armed primarily with bows who wore only a type of simple roll-up frontal defense. Pole slings were also used by some North American tribes and these would hurl stones over the first rank in the way that your brother was demonstrating with the lacrosse stick.
The literal rpg's tank unit.
Or a somewhat more glamorous sort of shield bearer.
A lot of good points about the back shield. Honestly, I think ALL of them are applicable and that's why they were so popular. They can protect the less experienced troops at the back when in formation, they can protect you from being surprised by flanking or ambush tactics and being shot down from behind, they protect you from overhand swings at the neck, they give you cover when moving and from friendly fire, they can be removed to form instant fortifications........it's literally the perfect device for smaller scale warfare on terrains where long range visibility is usually questionable and battles can often get a bit sketchy. We know from historical European accounts when routed and having backs exposed........is when MOST troops died. Retreat is often deadlier than combat. That back shield makes strategic retreats a lot safer which in an ambush style of warfare would probably be common. I love the concept.
As a person who is ethnicity, Mexican and partially decends from Aztecs and mayans I am infatuated with native armor and weapons and this series is very useful in learning that knowledge thank you titohtazqueh sir
You’re welcome. Io.
Thank you for these videos. They've been very useful for my DnD games, where my players keep wanting to create wooden armor.
Mine used to want to make armor from the things they killed. Ribcage armor, dire wolf skin armor. Cave bear armor. Orc skull armor.
Players are the worst.
@@MalcolmPL what's even more infuriating is that in this case, wooden armor is entirely feasible.
No good reason to say no.
@@MalcolmPL I guess you won't be showing them Skallagrim's bone armor video then...
@@MalcolmPL I actually wanted to formally ask your permission too. I am writing an RPG setting that borrows heavily from remixing less known bits of history in a fantasy setting, and would benefit greatly by having wooden armor. Do you think 'Wood Slat Armor' would be a good culture-neutral name for this type of armor?
something that others might have alreadt commented on but seems useful to me is that the backplate essentially helps replace shoulder plates to some extent. any overhead swing that would target the head/shoulders would have to be close enough range such as to not overswing and hit the back plate rather than the intended target, this might also be part of why weaponry favoured things like axes and maces rather than longer weapon designs that might be more likely to overswing into the backplate.
Its hard to describe how interesting your videos are. I have never once thought of the importance of a back shield. I have always assumed it was merely a means of carrying equipment. Just imagining someone making it to a wall and fastening his shield to his back so he does not get hit by friendly arrows sounds incredibly plausible. this way he has hands are free unless he is the first up the ladder. Interesting thought experiment.
I wish you the best of luck in your experiments and I hope you enjoy your work.
Cheers.
I hadn’t thought about it in a medieval context, that makes a lot of sense. Climbing a ladder is a situation in which suppressing fire would be particularly useful.
Well thought out.
I had been thinking about the military use of lacrosse sticks as well. It seems like an ideal tool to fling stones en masse, even ones you find on the spot.
Canadians in the Great War used them to lob grenades, so yeah, they are provably fit for military purpose.
There are also cultural connections, the Mohawk name for lacrosse translates as “the little brother of war,” and the game was used as a form of military training, so it would make sense if something like the lacrosse stick was used as a weapon.
Ha, I love how you got the whole family out there to test this out.
On the back shield, apologies if this is an ignorant observation but you're also carrying effectively a sled. The use of the backshield outside of combat seems obvious for hauling a person, an animal or anything else you need to get back home. It would be surprising if this inspired tales of this or that backshield was so strong it carried a whole moose home or took a thousand blows. Also bending at the waist makes the backshield a sloped surface which increased the deflection chance of things hitting it exponentially.
Same for the shingaurds, their slat design makes them easily into snow shoes.
In another video you mention the skirt piece making climbing difficult. A cut in the middle to make it two pieces that split for each thigh makes sense and could easily be merged by a knot when needed.
Really awesome videos and thank you for doing everything you do.
I had never before been introduced to the back shield of any culture. In your last video, I was surprised to see how it's a deflection to head assault from the front. , Or even the back. Wow, very cool alternative to a helmet with visual problems, weight, etc
Man, this series is a fascinating watch. Kudos, well executed and well explained!
Cheers.
Related to what you were saying about shielding from projectiles and why that’s better than just a helmet - If the primary melee weapons were clubs and axes, a helmet certainly is useful, but a strong hit from a club or heavy axe could still be lethal or debilitating through a helmet. Even with that wooden helmet, being hit in the back of the head with a club could definitely concuss someone. With the back-shield, as you pointed out, it keeps blows of any kid from landing on the head. If you were surrounded or had to turn around, this shield could really increase your chances of survival.
I have learned more about Kanienkeha history on this channel than ever before just trying to learn and research by myself. Thank you for the time you put in, you’re helping our culture everyday you post 👍🏼
Well you’ve made my day with that.
Wow, you're really awesome for doing this labor of love, a gift to Turtle Island
Thank you so much Malcolm!
the inuit back sheilds can often also be pulled around you like acloak almost to protect face by looks of it
milanian crossbow men also used backsheilds and massed crossbow ranks
you can use a bow with a back shield and turn your back to enemy if they return fire also
its about the only way to carry a decent sized shield and use a bow at same that i know of
I just wanted to say that this reasoned historical investigation into First Nation armor and culture is incredible and I have a new found respect for this stuff. Really cool.
This series of videos has been one of the most fascinating things I've seen on youtube for a while! Thank you and great work!
I love when these kinds of reconstructions reveal new things about what was possible. I love these videos!
Thank you so much for showing us this culture! I am amazed and highly Intreagued by your people now! :D
I was playing as the Iroquois in Civ 5 and was wondering if they wore armor then I get your videos in my feed. Thanks for the comfy informative vid brother.
An excellent analysis! I've studied warfare & siege tactics in the Middle Ages, and you are quite right about the archers (and slingers!) moving up to the forefront while the enemy is still at range. The only time you'd get effective rows of archers one behind the next is if they have high ground under & behind themselves and can stand in layers on the slope (as if on performance risers), specifically with a clear line of sight past the people in front of them. Randomly loosing a whole bunch of arrows is only effective for a short period of time; first it requires the enemy to be suitably clumped up to have a good chance of hitting anyone...and secondly, either the enemy will retreat out of range, or they will spread out in their approach to make it that much harder to inflict widespread damage with random shots.
Well done...I appreciate your approach to rediscovering historical accuracy
Love these new eye opening historical vids!
Cool video my friend keep it up
You can't tell me what to do! Just for that, channel deleted! So there.
The back shield is definetly the most interesting part of the armor in my opinion
Everything else is pretty self explanatory.
@@MalcolmPL yeah, but also beacause i have seen it mostly on native american armor,and because i am a big fan of shields in general.
The fighter-artilleryman combo here presented is a very interesting mechanic to implement in an RPG.
Having watched and enjoyed this whole miniseries about your armour i figured i should comment here as well, to maybe boost the algorithm a bit!
The idea makes a lot of sense, would be interesting to see if it has similar explanations in the siberian or similar traditions. Or if they focus on some other useful aspect.
I was told that the winged armor of eastern siberia were so that slingers could throw over your head safely. That's where I got the initial idea in the first place.
Also. Though I appreciate the sentiment, Commenting doesn't really seem to help the algorithm. I think that's a myth. I've had videos that do well with hardly any comments and the opposite.
Dang, really glad I found this channel!
I appreciate your content man; this is really great stuff!
Great observations. These videos deserve more views.
Cheers.
This was an excellent series of videos, presented in a clear and informative way.
I appreciate you taking the time to share the process and findings on an underappreciated (and honestly hard to rigorously research) part of history.
Fascinating videos! Thank you for making these!
I gotta say that the intimidation factor is definitely a big part of it. You DO look more imposing! Just putting it on makes it look like you know what you're doing and that you mean business.
I'd be curious to see you try some sparring in this!
A thought that struck me during this video is when you referred, in an earlier video, to the men wearing them as champions or veterans. To my mind that adds to the idea of the back shield being used to protect the ones in the behind the front row (and vice versa). It would take a fair amount of courage to stand there as the enemy attacks you, even as you fight back. That could be a sign of courage and experience, being able to take the oncoming enemy 'fire' and be skilled enough not to flinch while defending yourself.
Anyway, it's just a vague thought on my part.
Extremely interesting videos. Thank You
Dude love the studies you’ve done on the subject, much appreciated🙏🧠
My great great grandma was iraqoise her name was Horsman and she would be very proud of what your doing
Interesting video and I think you got it right for the Iroquois back shield. But there has to be another reason to use back shields that has nothing to do with formation fighting. You've shown the scythian backshield a couple of times but it has some differences that make it not suitable for the use you've described. Because it doesn't protect the head and also doesn't protect the lower back but mostly the shoulder area. Also the scythians were equestrian and there are depictions of this back shield on horseback.
besides the interesting observations noted in these comments , you also show the continued value of siblings!
Thank you very much for all your effort you put into this!!!
Someone has got to do it, so it might as well be me.
Cool set of videos!
I’m always amazed by the depth of understanding when someone from a culture or region explains or theorizes their own history. But it does make more sense than a foreigner so-called expert filtering through their own regional understanding. I see the same thing when I watch a Christian speaker or professor who converted from either Judaism or Islam. They have a much better understanding of the culture in which the texts were written.
Cool idea and some great experimentation ^v^
The tufts of corn stalk in the illustration also provide added cover and block line of sight for opponents while those close can easily see around. The only question with this though is this a pullover from older battles where more fighters were involved. By the time of European Contact in the Northeast they were doing small battles, like from video 1 of say 100 each, I am assuming due to concentrates in field-able fighters.
Thanks for this content.
I am interested in your opinion on two option for the skirt. One is a way to sling it over the back when moving quickly some distance is needed. The second is a way to wear it that allows turning it to the rear for easy movement as with a belt. Fascinating stuff. This looks a little bit familiar. Maybe from Central or South America, or the Pacific Islands that have no metals at all.
This video series on Iroquois armor makes me rethink and re-imagine the viking attempt at colonizing Newfoundland. While I previously always thought vikings being swarmed by disorganized bands of stereotypically half-naked native warriors overwhelming them by sheer force of numbers, I am realizing that the vikings were probably worse off than that alone. Of course I cannot speak to what the tribes they encountered used as armor or even if they used any, but I am picturing now battle lines of disciplined native warriors supported by swarms of younger warriors, wearing armor that was effective enough against swords and axes, if not spears, AND they outnumbered the viking colonists that were comparatively just civilians. The viking colonists were not only overcome, they must have been squashed like bugs.
The irony is that the natives successfully defending their homeland and driving the vikings out changed the course of history. They could have been more slowly exposed to european sicknesses, perhaps not losing quite as many of their people due to disease. Perhaps they might even have traded knowledge like iron working and husbandry of european animals in exchange for their native agricultural plants. This could have rapidly transformed the entire american continent into a much more formidable force that might even have been able to resist european colonization.
Just a small point I would like to make. Viking basically means pirate. If they were Vikings then they were well armed for the time. If they were Scandinavian explorers then thats a different story.
The Lacrosse stick as a stone thrower is a new one on me. I use slings and staff slings but I'll have to give that a try.
Seems like it would help for retreating with your back to the enemy.
Yep. But that is way down the list of potential benefits.
@@MalcolmPL Are you sure? Stone age peoples are famous for hit and run tactics, and retreating unless the odds are in their favour. That tactic is a winning one right up until the invention of iron, which is a long way down the tech tree of humanity. And then around the 5th right up until the 12th century it became effective again.
@@dr.lexwinter8604 I don't think you would use this armor for a hit and run raid. I think this is battlefield armor. The apron hinders the legs a little and the back shield catches wind, I'm a little bit slower in this. Besides that, the back shield makes it more awkward to move through dense underbrush.
Also, in Champlain's account of the battle in 1609, he describes them as casting aside their armor to better flee.
This is very informative, keep the good job My dude
Nothing else to do while in lockdown.
amazing stuff
I wonder if to some degree the back plate might have been useful in hunting and scouting as well. A lone individual or small party might benefit greatly from it in several ways. It could make a good laying surface or makeshift cover for camping. It could be used in part to port goods or injured people. It would provide some defense from being leaped on by a predator (there were a lot more large predators on the continent back then). If absolutely necessary to survive, parts of it could even make good kindling and starter. Or to fashion a splint for a broken limb.
I imagine that, possibly, in a smaller fight the back-shields of the first rank would also allow the second rank to stand back a little and quickly respond to any gaps that develop (either due to the movement of individual warriors, casualties, or as an intentional tactic) with projectiles without having to worry about hurting people on their side quite so much, and perhaps to do likewise to anyone trying to get around your first rank. No idea whether there's any evidence for that, just a thought.
I'm forwarding your stuff to my Mi'kmaq friend, he loves this stuff.
As do I. Subbed. Also, it's clear that you've researched some medieval history, or maybe you're familiar with a lot of the big names on TH-cam who talk about this stuff. The short video with the rush light makes me think you've at least seen the video by Modern History TV, though that could be coincidence.
Cheers. Recommending the channel helps a lot, and I could do with more native viewers.
Re, medieval history. I’ve done extensive research on the British dark ages, and a fair bit of later periods. I used to be right into that all that stuff. Still am to some extent.
Re, youtube. You’re right about mhtv, I thought it was a neat bit of tech and wanted to try it, and I’ve also watched videos by all the big names at one point or another.
@@MalcolmPL Well, if you're looking for something from the Algonquian East, there's the Penobscot bow to inspect. It's in a similar position to the gunstock warclub, in that there's ambiguity of whether it existed prior to European settlement. But it's an interesting design - it apparently behaves similarly to a modern compound bow in how it becomes easier to draw after a point (though I haven't handled it myself).
Of course, no harm if you can't make it or just want to stick to Iroquian stuff.
I agree, those are neat. But I won’t be covering them as I have no experience with them aside from seeing pictures online, and I don’t think I’m a skilled enough bowyer to make my own.
Интересные видео делаешь, Малькольм, логично рассуждаешь, молодец!!!
Спасибо. Приятно с вашей стороны сказать.
I was coming to a similar conclusion. If you have a dense formation of warriors, the backplates serve as a screen to cover and obscure the warriors shooting arrows or throwing projectiles. Completely different from skirmishers in antiquity, meant to harass the enemy as well as mask the movements of their army's formations.
This adds credence to another point you made in part 2, that the spear was not at all a common weapon used in combat. Meaning, it's more important to get your bowmen and throwers as close to the enemy as you can. I'm thinking of it as a more offensive/mobile version of the Roman square formation, except instead of defending against Cavalry, it's to attack.
Thank-you for the insight of your work with this armor! It is both fascinating for speciation in regards to historical use and for its possible implementation into game systems. If you find time I would like to know what improvements you feel would naturally be made to this armor?
There isn't much I would change.
If I was improving this armor, I would shape the breastplate differently, so that the corners would come up to cover my collarbone.
I would also add a couple of panels for the side of my torso.
I would make the wings a couple inches wider, and the apron a couple inches longer.
I would add cheek plates to the helmet.
I would add vambraces and rerebraces.
I might also use leather strips to bind the breastplate rather than plant cords.
Hi, I am intrigued by the whole thought of lacrosse, being like a ritualized sort of warfare, and that the original purpose was to throw rocks at your enemies
I would never have thought of that. The archers being shielded by shields carried by someone else. Thats clever. Possibly the archers could have safely fired from gaps between the shields carried by the front rank. Or perhaps the lacrosse stone throwers.?
That's a possibility, but I think it's a little less likely than over the shoulder, as there's a higher chance of my unarmored arms being in the way. But it would give the advantage of a direct shot.
Makes a lot of sense. Even in today's combat friendly fire is quite common.
Its cool to see experimental archeolgy being done on non-european cultures
Someone's got to do it, so it might as well be me.
@@MalcolmPL I realize this is a few years old now, but just a thought:
If the hand to hand combat is mostly done with clubs then the 'killing strikes' are generally to either the head or spine, by the look of it the backplate would work well protecting from such a strike. If the shield was a bit higher (the islander ones appear to extend well above the head) it should also help protect against downward head strikes id think.
Thank you for a great series. I was really wondering about the back plate as it seemed bizarre to me. I did wonder if you knew why the other cultures had used them. They do seem designed to prevent rear attack but that made no sense until you explained that it was protection from your own troops. It seems to me, likely then, that the armoured line would move forward and engage in melee whilst the rear lines were throwing everything they had. The rear lines could not have been too far back because there is no protection to the buttocks or rear of legs. That said, is it possible a rear skirt was a separate skirt.
Great video, great channel!
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
very good video
Amazingly, there were generals stupid enough to employ the melee in front archers in back tactic - and got a lot of their warriors shot! I’ve only found European sources on this, but still relevant I think.
Mixed formation tactics are actually fairly common in Europe and Eurasia at least, not being familiar with Africa or SEA. Tercios and Pike and Shot Warfare is probably the most well known examples, where Arquebusiers would be frequently embedded in the formation of pikes, advancing to take shots (while still within the pikes or behind the first rank perhaps) to allow the formation to statically defend against cavalry charges while maintaining a steady stream of fire. In an early medieval context, we know the Romans made frequent (if not exclusive) use of mixed formation tactics with their phalanxes from at least the 6th century onwards, with there being front ranks and file edges of experienced and well armed spearmen, with lesser equipped men behind them, and in the center of the phalanx would be men outfitted as ranged troops, loosing javelins, arrows, darts, or even slinging stones over the front ranks/files of spearmen. The Abbasids likely modeled this very closely, with the Romans potentially drawing this style of fighting from them. In China there is also almost exclusive used of mixed formations of troops, with ranged troops existing on the outside of formations while the core of units is comprised of missile troops to engage/harass while the front rankers taker the brunt of melee. Structure of files also influences the potential of striking a buddy's head as well, with alternating files possibly removing this risk.
I agree, but not in the way depicted in video games where both components are fighting at the same time.
It was my understanding that in a pike and shot formation would not both be fighting at the same time. Either the pikes are seeing off cavalry, and the muskets are silent for fear of blowing off your buddy's head. Or the muskets are firing, and the pikes are crouched, not doing much.
Re, the romans, it was my understanding that the slingers, velites, and other skirmishers would be in front of the formation during the initial stages to harrass, then retreat behind when it fell to hand to hand, not to continue throwing stones, but to act as reserves to plug any gaps.
Re, formation structure. I disagree. Heads move around a lot in a fight. And even among masters, bows javelins and slings have some degree of variation. Far more so if these skirmishers are the less experienced warriors. You would have to have a very loose formation to have any kind of confidence.
@@MalcolmPL Different Romans, I don't like the term "Byzantine" but to specifically refer to the Eastern Roman Empire and Arab tactics, they'd long shifted from the style of Legionaires to one of predominantly spearmen, with both mixed type of spears (different weights and sizes based on target), missile troops in the center, and being a mostly static form of infantry combat.
The Chinese were also similar to this in many dynasties, mixed formations I'd say overall aren't very aggressive formations that actively pursue and engage targets (like Legionaries for example, or Swiss Pikes) but would castle up on the field to act as an anvil to the cavalry's hammer (or in the case of the Ming Dynasty, simply fire until the enemy died or left). I don't know specifically _how_ the Greek Romans fired bows or javelins over the heads of spearmen without potentially injuring their comrades, but it comes up in mention of Roman military treatises (highly recommend searching Libgen for some, like the Strategikon, Taktika of Leo the Wise, Three Byzantine Military Treatises, among others).
Going from Roman text though, these formations were actually quite dense (being focused on static defense) with the purpose of the inner ranks being skirmishers is so they participate in the battle in some manner, while also getting experience in a safe manner so they wouldn't die. In regards to spacing in formations though there is a good examples in treatises of 16th-17th century pike and short warfare, where formations had different densities based on the combat taking place and would shift based on the fighting going on. When early modern European pikes (although this is just generalizing, tactics varied between regions) marched the men would be very loosely spaced, tightening somewhat once in battle, and forming a very dense formation if they came under attack by cavalry or surrounded. This is probably how gunners had the means to maneuver, simply stepping through ranks spaced out by more than 3 feet to shoot in between the shoulders of men, or advance within range of the pikes. The Eastern Romans though I can only hypothesize how they did it, as the authors seem to imply they simply shot over the heads of the front ranks. Which is perfectly viable with javelins safely, but not bows.
Regarding the point with the warriors possibly training themselves to not flinch when things were thrown at them ...
Maybe that was the point of the many torturous endurance and pain rituals in native culture, and the expectation of stoicism towards pain?
Some damn fine fur coats!
There was a sale on moose leather and rabbit furs.
archery with a back shield. best protection is to turn as far away from the enemy as is possible when drawing or loading. as some siberian folk used to do
Yeah, that certainly is a benefit.
Have you considered testing the effectiveness of the back shield in the context that the armored warrior, as well as his opponents, use bows as their primary weapon? When shooting a bow your torso is turned sideways so that one shoulder is facing towards your target. While in the shooting position your left (back) side of your body could be left terribly exposed to an attack from this direction. (Assuming you're right-handed). It's also instinctive to flinch and turn away from an incoming projectile which exposes more or your back and neck. Different context, but early samurai were primarily mounted archers. Their armor developed large shoulder guards to serve as a sort of shield in order to free up both their hands to use their bows but still provide some protection to their upper body. Your thoughts?
I thought about that. Some demonstrations are included in part 2. But assuming you've already seen that, let me give some proper answers.
The back shield doesn't work as a shield for the second rank if the wearer is shooting a bow in a normal archery stance. In order for it to work as described, you would have to hold the bow forward, which would limit your draw length and accuracy.
If you aren't trying to shield the back rank, the wings of the armor work quite well at protecting you, except when at full draw. Useful for example when reloading. This sort of, (though not entirely) fills the same role as the samurai shoulder guards.
The exposed portion under the arm when at full draw is something I'm uncertain about. It is a significant weakness, and I'm tempted to add an additional plate to cover the gap, as this would make a lot of sense to me. But as "illustrations of Algonquin dress," is my primary reference, and such a plate is not shown due to the artist's perspective, I have not done so.
@@MalcolmPL I agree that the gap under the arm is a difficult one to explain. Perhaps it may be a matter of mobility? I guess only further tests will shed some more light? It's great to see that someone is actually applying some experimental archeology to Native American warfare. Definitely an under-researched topic. Keep up the good work!
@@Honeybadger_525 I think it's likely there was something under the arm. Pacific northwestern armors have side panels, as does the armor depicted on the conquering warrior pipe head. I did a test where I crudely attached one of my destructive test panels under the arm, it didn't interfere much.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah this makes sense. If I were fighting in melee I would rather not have the back shield at all, since I'm never going to turn my back (no warrior in any culture would). The back shield wrapping around to cover the shoulders and arms only makes sense if you are protecting from rear attack as it does slightly impede fighting efficiency but offers no frontal protection. If the back shield is protecting me from my troops missiles it makes sense to protect my shoulders and arms and is a fair trade off since those missiles are helping me. The other thing That you may have considered is that the armour is only to defend from missiles , so that you can get to the enemy lines (which makes the arm pit issue mute). The reason I think this is that its odd to protect the shins for non mounted warriors. You are probably aware that at the battle of Hastings 1066 they used big kite shields on horse back to protect the lower leg since it was generally unarmoured. It strikes me as odd that shin protection was necessary for melee with relatively short weapons. But would make sense against missiles. Also the helmet shape is similar to what European armies used to withstand missile attack whilst advancing. Tilt the head forward to protect the face and the helmet is the perfect shape for missiles to glance off.
I can also see that the back shield can also be used as a mobile fortification you suggest in the prior video and if the heavy infantrymen kneeled holding the shield to the ground while the archers duck low while reading their next shot then popping over for a clear shot.
Maybe even you had two lines of heavy infantrymen, one kneeling with the back shields in front and the second line on their backs for maximum protection of all the warriors in a fixed defensive line.
Back shield sort of reminds me of how samurai shoulder armor, (Especially early Yoroi) can move to protect their backs from arrows. Usually enemies than allies but still.
Oh an japanese Tate (Handheld or moveable wall) shields, there are illustrations and manuals that show them strapping it to their backs during battle similar to this.
the plumes on the backshield might also catch projectiles. it might not stop them, but it might reduce its velocity.
unlikely. If they were effective then why not cover the entire top of the back shield with them. They may though, have served as identifiers. So from behind I could tell who was in front of me. Its possible the best throwers/archers were assigned to the best melee fighters. At least if I was in charge, thats what I would do.
thx a lot!!!
Very interesting
I thought so.
The backshield makes a lot sense.
Romans would set up ranks the other way around. Veterans in the back. A Still neck protection on helmets was pretty elaborate. I feel it must be for the same reason.
And Back shield = 4 free hands. Brilliant deduction.
The old Roman system seems designed for producing more veterans quickly. But note that their front ranks were still heavily armed and armored; if you couldn't afford that, then either you were a skirmisher (velites) or simply not going to war at all. And the front rank had its own missile weapons in javelins, before going to short sword + giant shield melee.
This is incredibly interesting. Thank you for making this.
I've been using your videos (such as the antler armor test video) to help me write up rules for equipment made from varius materials, for my Dungeons & Dragons group, and this is an incredibly inspiring miniseries of videos!
I'll definitely be writing up rules for this kind of armor.
If I had to give it a culturally neutral name, what would you suggest?
It's somewhat reminiscent of lamellar or splint, but that wouldn't be an accurate term for it at all, I feel.
I would call it slat armor. That’s the term I’ve read for the Haida armor.
@@MalcolmPL Thank you!
I will do so. The name feels like a good one.
Have you considered that the front rank of armoured warriors could have kneeled to allow the ranged junior warriors to shoot? That way the front rank become a mobile pavise that can quickly stand to provide a fully armoured wall if necessary.
I like the snowball test hehe
Being safe doesn’t mean you can’t have fun.
I found it interesting that inuits had battle armor. Who did they primarily fight with? Other Native American tribes? Siberians? Vikings? Did Mongols go that far North?
You could also shoot from the left or right, simular to hiding behind a tree.
Yeah, I guess so, I hadn’t thought of that.
From an ambush perspective an armored warrior from behind can be imtimidation tool due to the high backshield and tall helmet?
Yeah, like a moving wall of wood.
In Turkish archery there is a technique where an archer draws the bow overhead shooting down allowing him to shoot an enemy at the bottom of a wall without leaning over the edge and exposing himself. Could an overhead draw be used for shooting over these back plates?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re referring to. A quick google search is unhelpful.
If I’m thinking of the right thing, then I suppose it’s possible. I don’t see any reason why not.
Speculation, but when your unarmored fellow warriors run out of projectiles, you are also also covered when you turn around and run off for new rocks.
Did the Iroquois have a tradition of slingers? It seems like slingers can both use a shield and fire projectiles simultaneously.
Not that I'm aware of. Which is sort of why I mention lacrosse sticks as a potential replacement.
@@MalcolmPL makes sense. Like an atlatl for stones. Very cool.
@@MalcolmPL I wonder if in the past the ancestors of the Iroqouis had used staff-slingss and this evolved into the sport of lacross
Those closed battle formation with slingers, archers and dart throwers close behind seem to have been common in micronesia, eastern siberia and northern America, this was not common in most cultures hence the lack of backsheilds.
There is good russian accounts of conbat with alaskan and siberian natives using these tight formations. Needless to say russian muskets made easy work of these and the natives quickly aquited guns in many areas of kamchatka and chuchotka, magadan ect but they still persisted local conflicts till the late 19th century in isolated places
Given that the back shield is curved, attached to you, and behind you, wouldn’t it also direct projectiles towards your head/back as it intercepts them? In this specific scenario it’s appears to be a hindrance.
An arrow would just stick in it. A stone might be annoying.
From the sounds of this the back shield should be made from material as durable as the rest of the armour as it's going to to be protecting you more then I think you thought I realise that this adds wait I would be interested to see how much
The helmet reminds me of the boar tusk helmet of the bronze age
make more videos and more armor!
If you dont mind me asking, what are your thoughts on the descriptions in the Book of Mormon?
I know shad did a brief video on it, but most of its content, is supposed to be on the native people of America, the stuff you talk about is definitely fascinating when I think about the war chapters in Alma.
As a Native, a skeptic and a historian. I have a very low opinion of the book of mormon. The book is not based on history. I don't want to offend anyone more than necessary, so let's leave it at that.
No problem I understand, but I figured I'd ask. Keep up the content though!
It would be amazing if this was the origin of the lacrosse stick. Also for a young man skilled in it's use, it could easily be used to take small game.
I know somebody who's cousin uses them to hunt rabbits.
According to Sir John Smythe's 1594 military manual, English archers used broad formations of up to 7-8 ranks deep that allowed all the archers to shoot, assuming their targets were at a reasonable distance away. The text specifically mentions shooting "ouer the heads of the rank or ranks before them." So it probably was done in that context, of formations of archers alone, unless that was pure theory on Smythe's part. Also Baron Marbot's account of facing Russian horse archers in the early 19th century mentions how they had to shoot their arrows at a high angle to avoid hitting friendlies in front:
"With much shouting, these barbarians rapidly surrounded our squadrons, against which they launched thousands of arrows which did very little damage because the Baskirs, being entirely irregulars, do not know how to form up in ranks and they go about in a mob like a flock of sheep, with the result that the riders cannot shoot horizontally without wounding or killing their comrades who are in front of them, but shoot their arrows into the air to describe an arc which will allow them to descend on the enemy. This system does not permit any accurate aim, and nine tenths of the arrows miss their target. Those that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries. In fact the Baskirs, having no other arms, are undoubtedly the world’s least dangerous troops."
That seems to also be the case of missile troops operating alone, not the scenario of archers behind soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand combat. I'm curious if there are any sources that address the question of what archers & other shot did in close combat. I'll keep any eye out. I recall various 16th-century Western European military writers debated the military of mixing arquebusiers/musketeers in with pikers, with some strongly discouraging this practice.
Cheers, I hadn't read either of those.
I know english archers where mixed into formations and pike/shot formations had the archers integrated to the wings.
The Almoravid Berbers used a combined arms formation in which the front rank of spearmen knelt. This way they could better brace to receive a cavalry charge and cover their entire bodies with their four to four and a half foot shields while the rank behind them hurled javelins at the oncoming opponent. Archers, cavalry, and camelry were positioned in the rear, and could move through gaps in the formation that the line troops were trained to open as needed.
The backshields primary reason is to provide protection against your allies? Why am I not surprised! :P
Especially with brothers lol
Ha! Among other things.
you mentioned the lacrosse stick being good at tossing things I suppose like rocks and maybe that was the original purpose.
You probably know better than I but wasn't the game whose name I have no idea how to pronounce that lacrosse descends from originally used as a war training exercise of sorts?
If that is so that it would make sense that it's not just about tactics being taught on a battlefield but also how to use and be accurate with a stick to throw things.
It's not too dissimilar from something like a sling staff which we know were used as weapons.
Ella acrostic probably has shorter range than a sling staff but much greater accuracy.
The little brother of war.
Teaches teamwork, tactics, situational awareness, athleticism, and the ability to take blows and keep going. Is it that far fetched that it could also teach weapon skills?
@@MalcolmPL no, not at all. It certainly teaches accuracy, quickness g the ability to do both in jostling chaos...sounds a lot like war in that period to me.
in europe spears as melee weapons in warfare are first documented from the bronze age maybe for the same reason of splintering stone tips
I hadn't heard that. I wonder if some sort of wooden armor was used by neolithic europeans.
@@MalcolmPL I didn't know anything about neolithic european armor but I've some interest in bronze age warfare
@@MalcolmPL It's not known at the current time. Rod and slat armor would be unlikely to show up in the archeological record. It is known from archaeological excavations that the bow and arrow was used extensively in warfare at the Neolithic, contrary to the assertion by Marija Gimbutas that early European farmers were peaceful before the arrival of the early Indo-European speakers (who, BTW, were related in some way to Native Americans). I've forwarded links to your videos to a European archaeologist.
Better to have your neck get missed and the enemies arrow get stuck in the back shield than it is to get an arrow in the back rows neck.