Arrows vs Armour 2 - Our thoughts 6 months later
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ส.ค. 2024
- Thousands of knights were shot at Agincourt, but we don't really know how......So I pulled together an incredibly talented crew and we made a series of films called the 'Arrows vs Armour' Series looking and this now runs to 16 films.
6 months after the second set of films Dr Toby Capwell (historian/jouster) and Tod Todeschini (weaponsmith) get back together to discuss details of the films that they felt the need to talk about; this is their very detailed discussion.
We are discussing the Arrows vs Armour2 film • MEDIEVAL ARMOUR TESTED...
Playlist for Arrows vs Armour • MEDIEVAL MYTH BUSTING
Playlist for Arrows vs Armour 2 • Arrows vs armour 2
If you want to know absolutely everything about the Arrows vs Armour series of films, you will find that information here todtodeschini.com
Dr Capwell's books on English Armour:
Armour of the English Knight 1400-1450
www.olympiaauc...
Armour of the English Knight 1450-1500
www.olympiaauc...
Armour of the English Knight: Continental Armour in England 1435-1500
www.olympiaauc...
For commissions and custom work todsworkshop.com
For budget medieval weaponry of fantastic accuracy and value todcutler.com
For merch todsworkshop.c...
Matt Easton of Scholagladiatoria's video:
Were Steel Arrow Heads used by English Archers? Arrows Vs Armour 2 follow up:
• Were Steel Arrow Heads...
Thiago Braga of Brasão de Armas' video:
Archers vs Knights: Debunking Medieval Myths:
• Arqueiros vs Cavaleiro...
Hi, Tod. This is Thiago Braga. Wow, I'm really glad for your kind comment and reference to my small contribution to your wonderful work. You have an excellent and engaged community here. Congratulations! Thank you very much for this! Keep up the good work.
You should consider adding subs to all your videos. Would help some of us a lot in enjoying your work, as well as Tod's :)
@@dan_the_djI appreciate it! Thanks for the tip
@@dan_the_dj Second that, my portuguese is a little rusty ;) but your reaction to Tod videos were very insightful Thiago.
A pleasure Thiago and thanks for the input
@@Festoniaful thanks mate!
"Little kids will say, 'Look at the knights!' - well, they're not knights, they're empty husks that used to contain knights." - Toby Capwell, new director of the Children's Museum of Agincourt
Depressed Toby Capwell speaking to children soon to have nightmares.
I always thought of armour (in the context of "art") as being 3D depictions/representations of knights. Like how you could point to a painting of something and see the event through the painting.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 The phrasing reminds me of that one painting of a pipe with the caption, "This is not a pipe"--since it is after all a painting.
(see wikipedia, "The Treachery of Images")
Still, I think the point being made is that the experience of a real knight would vary from that of the armor, both during the engagement since he'd be making tactical decisions in order to not die, and also before the engagement since he'd be making different purchasing decisions. So the testing in AvA2 is not capturing a key variable (the human variable), and consequently the results need some interpretation. Therefore, the viewer's interpretation/conclusion may vary from the ones made by Tod, Toby, and crew on the spot and still be just as valid.
I was trying to think of a way to word that same joke. lol
Toby capwell, after suffering a metal break down and berating a child for their historical inaccuracy
@@nickolas474 Ceci n'est pas un chevalier?
Don't think an apology was needed for the reactions in the moment, but it's appreciated!
To me this seems like they are trying to be politically correct for a non scientific experiment and just a normal reaction video.
In reply to Kiono, we didn't actually feel compelled and in fact the response was massively positive and of course there is always some negative, but unless that is constructive it can be ignored. The main driver was that Toby felt we misrepresented the true nature of the target and wanted to clarify that. Remember though I am just a bloke organising things and thinking about them. Professional balanced research and presentation of the knowledge gained is Toby's job, so the finer points of semantics are professionally important to him whilst I am happy to call it what I fancy. Whilst we were here we decided to cover a few other areas that both of us wanted to discuss
Guess that explains why the first part was as it is, a long and in my opinion overly drawn out apology. I don't feel like I was mislead or that the the target was misrepresented.
As I frequent videos from the sword and gun tuber community I know that the targets are only an crude approximation at best, even the life-like ballistic torsos can behave 100% accurately. I'm use to taking the analysis with a bit of salt and drawing my own conclusions.
I sure its different for someone that 'knowledge' of armor and knights come from movies, novels, and videogames. Skyrim, For Honor, or Minecraft hardly have a realistic spin on plate armor, even if some games might try to be more realistic than others.
I don't feel that the 'unscientific' guesses of possible injuries was misrepresented either. The armor was only a representation of an average armor, so whether or not the rigging affected the penetrations. There likely was armor wore in combat that was inferior or flawed, and a similar arrow could have been pierced as deeply in a real men at arms or knight across the historic battlefields. Such an injury could very well have happen multiple times in unrecorded history.
Their is certainly a bias across history do to lack of evidence otherwise surviving. I don't feel that the armor in museums are what was forged by the average armor smith. Then again that might be my own bias.
Capwell's little rant on the medieval process of innovation at 37:54 is an excellent tonic. It's good to remember that improvements in this period weren't driven by research labs doing scientific experiments. It was a much more personal incremental process involving a smith's (and their clients') personal experiences, desires, and preconceptions, that slowly percolated to the wider industry. It's all too easy to fall into _"they could have done it, so they did do it"_ trap.
And some of those empirical observations were the subject of trade secret, and some of that was "lost" for others, or never passed on to the next generation.
Even with today's well-funded double-blind peer reviewed studies grounded in the scientific method, we still can't decide whether flossing your teeth actually improves health outcomes! We can't decide whether low-dose radiation is harmful or beneficial. Imagine how much more difficult this stuff was back in the day.
@QuantumHistorian I see more often the opposite trap striking "We do not know they did it so they couldn't".
Humans are innovative, curious critters. They play around with things, try to make them better.
There is an important difference between "we have reliable evidence that everybody did it" and saying "nobody could have done that".
The improvements were likely survivors of battle saying... Ive seen X hits on X part of the body bringing people down... Can you make me something?
"My lord, I have a cunning plan..."
"Dear God, what is it this time, Le Baldrique?"
"Well, you know how Lord de Percie died from an arrow into his shoulder..."
"Yes, an unfortunate turn of battlefield events. What of it?"
"Well, I was thinking that if you had another piece of plate armour covering that bit, then it wouldn't have happened..."
And with such intellectual powerhouses learning lessons from the less fortunate in battle, they innovated their way out of dying like that other bloke did.
The knowledge dr. Toby Capwell brings to the table is just.. impeccable.
I wasn't really that interested in medieval history, until I found Tod's Workshop. Now I'm hooked
Thanks - appreciate that
Toby is a fantastic speaker. He delivers his knowledge in ways that are straightforward and without excessive jargon. His love for these things shows through and it’s hard not to get excited with him.
I want to give you gentlemen credit and let you know the information and testing you are doing is extremely valuable. My studio is currently making a fantasy VR medieval fighting-esque game, and your videos allow us to bring some actual data into the gameplay and depart from the typical video game tropes that are frequently seen. Best regards and thanks again!
Don't forget to special thank them ;)
Not into VR, but just reading that this research is going to see representation in a video game is delightful news!
@@felixmervamee7834 well don't worry, we are working into a PC Crossplay aspect (it'll play akin to Skyrim)
What game??
@@Horendus123 FromLight, its a VR multiplayer coop / MMO game.
Slings vs armor next Tod. You know you want to see some clay glanes explode on a helmet. Or find out if some lead glanes can punch through maille. Archaic arms is kind of like the Joe Gibbs of slinging. He's said he'd love to offer his skills. It would make a fantastic film, even if only a short one.
Second. Tho it'd be difficult to gauge objectively how well a non-penetrating projectile is doing
@@adampalamara they make impact sticker things for crash test dummies. The sticker tells you gow hard the impact on it was. A few on a torso under armor would yield good data.
Lead shot has a decent chance to the sides or back
I wouldn't worry too much about what others think of the experiments. Evidence is evidence and your team did a fine job with what you had. Besides, no one else has stepped up and done this work before. We cannot go back and watch the battles as they occurred. We can't examine the pieces of armor from the casualties and survivors of the battle and see the results. You are breaking new ground. What we are learning is amazing. Nothing but respect from me.
Always good to see Dr. Capwell. He brings a whole different pov. He's studied it and lived a good bit of it, and a level head too. And Todd too, valuable as can be. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's as close as we can hope for getting answers to questions like these.
Now. Who's going to get dressed and be shot so we can get the proper pov? 😆👍
Well based on their previous tests, if you wore some really good ballistic safety glasses under the helmet, you mostly wouldn't _actually_ die, probably. So yeah, not me.
To be honest, I would, unfortunately British law wouldn't be kind to Tod if I was injured which is a shame because he is so integral to the history side of youtube
@@WalkingCWild i agree.. but no man, don't put yourself in front of that sort of danger unless the hoardes are on the way..
We have Knight Vision(Go Pro) to experience what a Knight might see before his demise, also in slow motion.
Honestly, If you assume the wearer knows about the weaknesses in his armour, what kind of stances and movement might he make to minimize penetrations? Just holding your weapon to block your armpit would seem to greatly increase survivability. While fully deflecting arrows is probably silly you might be able to cover a small weakpoints. Arm hit penetration chances could be vastly reduced or enhanced by twisting just a little. Of course, the biggest thing might be is just the force causing concussions and bruising, softening the enemy before he reaches the line.
This discussion is an excellent reminder of the fact that, medieval and "early modern" soldiers knew what they were doing, and we shouldn't be too presumptuous in second guessing their choices in weapons, armor and equipment, whether it's the 13th or 15th or 17th century, that we're talking about.
I hope you all do more in the future, I was a backer for A vs. A 2 and I would love to see more content that isn't related to Agincourt. I enjoyed the videos immensely and the banter between you all. Great stuff.
Still thankful
What I absolutely love about you guys is your intellectual honesty.
Social media and broadcast television are chock full of people who've discovered the way to increase their profile is to airbrush out uncertainty, and present opinion as incontrovertible fact.
Honest humility is not a sign of intellectual weakness, it's a sign of strength.
Thank you.
Arrows vs Armor 2, the series of films, was clear and well laid out with an excellent crew. Anyone who came to it in good faith would understand exactly what it is, and what it isn't , what was demonstrated and what questions were raised. And you were open and honest throughout. The fact you had to make this video, some of the concerns you address, reflects on the commenters, not the films.
Exactly how I felt as well. If you need to have this shit spoon fed to you at this level, that’s on you. They did about everything possible. If you can’t mentally imagine how a plate skirt or besagew would affect those shots, you should probably be in a special school for numbnuts, not out here, commenting on videos.
This is a 48 minute video and most of it is rooted in their own thoughts - not sure why you feel the need to slate the comments on the other videos just because they disagreed with some of the stuff said in the original videos. Tod and Toby have made it clear they welcome that disagreement - in this video, no less.
That's exactly WHY they asked the peanut gallery for help & comments - so we as a group could think of more things to test that might have been missed.
I was among the "brace it so it doesn't move so easily" crowd - turns out the event length was enough shorter than the kinetic transfer that it's irrelevant from the armor's point of view. (Honestly expected a MUCH faster transfer of energy from arrow to armor.)
P.S. The more eyes you have go over a paper BEFORE you publish, the less likely you are to publish in error.
In reply to Andy, we didn't actually feel compelled and in fact the response was massively positive and of course there is always some negative, but unless that is constructive it can be ignored. The main driver was that Toby felt we misrepresented the true nature of the target and wanted to clarify that. Remember though I am just a bloke organising things and thinking about them. Professional balanced research and presentation of the knowledge gained is Toby's job, so the finer points of semantics are professionally important to him whilst I am happy to call it what I fancy. Whilst we were here we decided to cover a few other areas that both of us wanted to discuss
@@tods_workshop for me, most of the things you talk about in this follow up were all clearly implied in the series. A lot of this seemed to be addressing the negative, which is a shame.
I’d also love to see “bolts vs armor” to see what some of the heavily powerful crossbows could do to armor.
Omg yes new fundraiser when?!
In other tests crossbows do very poorly against armour due to their little powerstroke.
Especially if Tod got Andreas Bichler and his incredible composite crossbows so we could compare composite and steel crossbows
@Cahirable steel prodded crossbows are terrible at piecing armour or anything for that matter. Maybe his composite prods would do better. Longer powerstroke on it as well
@@Daylon91 Plus crossbows became popular for the same reason firearms did, you could mass produce them and arm lots of people that didn't require a lot of training as they were more or less point and click compared to traditional bows and melee weapons.
No need to apologize for anything, Tod. Keep up the amazing films.
Great to see your thoughts 6 months after the original videos. It must have been tough to come up with conclusions "on the spot" as soon as filming was complete, so this video was needed as you revisited your thoughts on what happened. I'm sure you will find more investigations to make in the future and I can't wait to see the results.
One of the interesting secondary effects for me was when the shoulder plate got knocked off, sure that would be a pretty rare thing but if your armour gets damaged or badly dislodged you likely wouldn't have the opportunity o stop your charge and fix up your gear making you far more compromised to actual damage as the battle goes on.
As Toby brings up, these sort of freak events when you throw thousands of arrows down range become less freak
My harness fencing instructor introduced me to this neat concept of "armor bites" which isn't really well known for people who don't fight in armor. The gist of it is that with all the moving segments in plate armor there's always the small possibility something locks up or pinches a way it isn't supposed to, particularly in the limbs which move a lot. In this context it's not a fatal design flaw, we're talking more like a very untimely pinch near your groin or chafing/locking near some joint. But while not innately "dangerous" I can definitely imagine dislodged armor in battle being something your opponent would immediately capitalize on to your detriment, and you would be less able to actually respond because your movement is suddenly more restricted.
@@perrytran9504 I am sometimes lancebearer for a knight during a joust of peace. And once during the melee (on horseback) afterwards he had his right shoulderplate bind in the armpit of his breastplate, preventing him from fully bringing his arm down.
When theres potentially hundreds of arrows coming at you with quick succession, the area that a dislodged piece of armour exposes could take another hit within seconds regardless of whether the problem is fixable on the fly.
I wrote in under an old video. At some point you will have, what modern militaries call "mission kill". Sure the dude walked off the battle field, but his armor was a wreck before he reached the enemy line and could not participate in the melee.
The guys calling the shots on the French side probably had the best armor and thus felt the most confidence with the course they selected.
It must have been harrowing just being absolutely bombarded by arrows. Even if most of the arrows don’t penetrate it must have hurt regardless.
Yes it must have been! I remember a video on Matt Easton's channel in which Toby Capwell said that the French knights were bowing their heads as they advanced into the arrow storm, presumably to present the pointed top of the helmet and protect their eye slits and breaths.
See, I take a second possibility here. Yes there were guys who were concerned about getting hit in the gaps or between slots, etc... but knowing human psychology, there were definitely Johnny Knoxville types who got in that armor, saw the first arrow explode off them, and went absolute apeshit feeling they're completely invincible. Your "berserker" types, your jock types, you know these meat heads in your everyday life, folks who act with total disregard to reasonable safety or pragmatic caution. I'm from a long family of tough ass rednecks who did things that were utterly stupid in retrospect, but their reckless bravery, maybe half the time, paid off, the other half of the time, they patched themselves up with duct tape or superglue and went on about their day.
@@kiltedcrippleere’s also a good chance it wasn’t the first time for many of them. The first time they may have been terrified, but after enough of them, you could get used to it. You’d recognize the chance an arrow could hit a gap, but know 95/100 times you’d be fine. There’s a reason why knights are often synonymous with bravery today.
@@Specter_1125 So I know people who fight in historical armor and have recently started practicing along with them. I am inclined to agree here both based on their testimony and analysis of how battles are often described in historic accounts (both in and outside late Medieval Europe.) As with any other martial art, armored harness fencing involves a certain degree of mental conditioning about getting hit - plate armor despite armchair belief does not make you invulnerable, as even weapons which fail to pierce it can still clock you good or always end up somewhere unintentional. So while you're unlikely to get seriously injured in it, during practice you will still need to get used to getting bashed, stabbed, and tossed around harder than in standard HEMA. But obviously plenty of people of all sizes get used to it, and I have no doubt that if they can stand the impact of a (blunt) spear or longsword they can absolutely tolerate an arrow pinging off of them. And keep in mind, historically knights (and pretty much any other melee combatants I can think of) overwhelmingly lifted their visors when dismounted, unlike modern practitioners who are very safety-focused. So if they were fully prepared to accept the risk of getting shot in the unarmored face, I don't think they'd think twice if something hit their chest to no effect.
@@perrytran9504 Ok but HEMA isn’t fighting with actual deadly weapons. I used to do WWII reenacting but we never shot at each other with real bullets it’s not the same.
To sum up: armor works, but so does a whole bunch of heavy arrows loosed from a warbow.
Bloody hell you could have saved me months with that insight! Seriously, though, those few words pretty much sum it up
@@tods_workshop Well to pull up an aphorism to justify your most excellent hard work: "a picture is worth a thousand words..." Excellent series, cannot wait till you guys decide on the next chapter.
You all have completed one of the finest tests done to date and I’m embarrassed that you felt compelled to explain further your findings and experiences.
To any naysayer, I would simply ask; “where is your test? I’d love to see it”
Well played to all involved. I appreciate the expertise.
I was glad to have backed this. I am glad to have contributed and would do so towards episode 3. Cheers to the whole crew!
This channel is always an absolute pleasure to watch. I enjoy the fact that you can make intelligent conversations entertaining. When the world is glued to chaos, ignorance, and scripted drama, Tod’s Workshop is an extremely welcome reprieve for my mind.
Dr Capwell at the 46 minute mark: "[Agincourt] was a subject that was beaten well to death long before we ever got to it." I think this (unintentionally) undersells a lot of the value of the Arrows vs Armour projects. It's certainly true that Agincourt is one of the most written about battles. But most of those writers, even the academic historians, were piling quesswork upon conjecture upon speculation when it came to the capabilities of period arrows to do harm and the capabilities of period armour to prevent it. The kind of experimental archaeology Tod, Toby, et al are doing, even with all of its cautions, qualifications and caveats regarding conclusions, is really adding immeasurably to our understanding of Agincourt in particular and medieval warfare in general. Excellent work all!
Glad to have another video in this series. Also glad to see points I usually bring up when it comes to French armor when giving presentations that generally aren’t talked about. If you need someone to give information of countless hours put in to lower class French armor from about 1370-1440s I can and will gladly provide it for you all as I don’t have the ability to do such testing. Especially as part of my Agincourt harness got lost in the post…
To be honest this video made me laugh out loud. I've watched all the Arrow vs Armour videos. I've always enjoyed learning about weapons and armour and I've loved this channel ever since I found it. Just straight and honest attempts to discover more about the past. Simple as that. History plus Engineering plus Curiosity....
And you start this off as an TH-cam apology video?!!
Tod and Toby are so oddly adorably hilarious together in this video. They are so, so sorry that they hadn't thought through EVERY single variable that might effect the data. Adorable.
Just keep going guys! Please just keep having fun trying different experiments that help us learn, in however small steps it appears at the time, how real world engineering would have applied to someone living though history.
I really enjoyed the series and it's always a pleasure to see Toby Capwell again!
@12:00 middle-of-the-road armor will also validate *why* archers should be fielded against that army and what the flow of the battle would be on average.
Lovely analysis, glad to see you returned to the topic!
Good follow up to an epic video series. The science can go on forever; you guys are the frontiersmen. I was happy to help out with the first series and look forward to help fund the next series.
Thanks and still thankful
This is all such a refreshing break from the narrative-driven documentaries that TV produces. There seems to be a dogma that all the writers and directors and producers learn in media college that you have to find a narrative and make that central. And it is so frustrating to people who actually want to learn something, watching a documentary programme and hoping that there might be some actual information, that isn't distorted beyond reliability by the lens of storytelling.
I love the honesty. I love the fact that you are clear that you aren't doing repeatable scientific tests - but there is value in that too, because to make it repeatable, you have to take away the variability and test something very narrow. Great work, I look forward to more investigations.
Thanks and in fact we have been asked to give a presentation at Chalke Valley History festival and part of it is exactly this point
Stuff came before.....
"Mike, (friend and editor) and I were two of those guys, talking, reading, watching, shooting, speculating - but not doing….. and after watching another misleading You Tube film, we decided to find out for ourselves what happens if you shoot arrows at armour.
It is a simple concept, but one that is especially hard for TV companies, not because they are inveterate liars, but because the format does not support presenting ‘the whole truth’, and that is required for a balanced opinion. TV companies need to have a progressing story, a dramatic finale and a nicely tied up conclusion, with little time for nuance, deviation or a lack of pace or results. Experimental archaeology rarely likes those constraints; the results are the results, like it or not.
"
I love and respect the integrity of this channel when it comes to the search for truth. When mistakes are made they are addressed openly and a discussion ensues after criticisms are taken into consideration. This methodology is what is now lacking in many academic institutions but is alive and well here.
Been a fan of this series since the start, love to see Toby Capwell and you discuss your conclusions! Best of luck in the future series, hopefully we do get a third Arrows v. Armor when you all are willing to do one again. As always, thanks for the awesome videos and trying to find some answers to the crazy questions left by history
I very much appreciate conversations like this. Really delving into the minutiae. So much of this type of research is done in such a general way. Spending the time to pick apart and focus intently on the nuances does so much for solidifying our context and understanding of anything you apply this method to.
Thank you Tod and Toby! Hope you're both well, and I can't wait for the next installment! ^_^
On the subject of arrowheads, while not directly connect to this narrow subject and time period, there is an interesting passage from John of Plano Carpini from his notes during his travels to meet the Mongols:
"the heads of the arrows for both bows and cross-bows ought to be tempered after the Tartar fashion, in salt water when they are hot, to make them hard enough to pierce the Tartar armour. ' (dawson 1955 translation, but other translations I've looked at are very similar)
This not only means the Mongols were using steel or case-hardened heads, but also that the manner in which heads were quenched was important. It wasn't just steel or not, they were conscious of different quenching liquids, in this case brine, which creates a very hard and brittle steel. People in the medieval period would have been aware of this and theres even more complexity to everything.
Interestingly, the vast majority of Mongol arrowheads are also chisel shaped, rather than diamond sectioned. There are a few types that are diamond in plan, but they still tend to be flat in section, with a fairly short bevel to the edge. Might have had an advantage of some kind against the common Lamellar armors typically worn on the Steppes, or just to their forging techniques.
There's that quest in KCD where a blacksmith discovers double quenching and his rival thinks he's using magic to make better steel. A video game, but reflective of the reality of the time.
I great game.
The sun sets out across the skies; he loses his way, to the forge he flies.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance?
@@DinnerForkTongue Yes, great game.
Cracking stuff!
What marks the difference between one study and another is the post-study analysis and the ability to see more than is merely superficial. You folk do a fantastic job in setting this up and even better in the analysis.
As always, great work.
Have you ever thought that the ghost of a dark ages blacksmith and his archer friend are looking on and wondering why you're repeating what they went through in designing the armor in the first place?
It's a bit like NASA - we've lost that technology as technology moved on.
I mean, the dark ages weren't anything of the sort, but ghosts don't exist, so I guess the fantasy evens out?
It really is a shame they didn't just get a medium or a sorcerer to just summon them up for the info. heh.
I do wonder if they would look down/up at me and laugh or just simply be perplexed
@@coolsenjoyer those are NASA's words.
Maybe using one of those balistic gel torso and head would give a better backing for the armor, more representative. Good luck when it melts into the armor from heat 👍
Keeping in mind that those cost two grand each.
@@GrimrDirge some of those companies like to support youtubers. Todd could ask them if they wanted to help them out with a project for a future test. Maybe they can come to an agreement.
If there is a 3rd film, I think it would be awesome to have separate experiments: behavior of arrows at realistic distances against various targets using the crossbow for repeatability, and on the other hand having Joe reenact various ways archers might have had to fight (siege, open battle, having to deal themselves with enemy archery...)
You guys have done beautiful work through all of these films, and I can't thank you enough for the effort you have put into it.
I'm going to use that "they're not ____. they're an empty husk that used to contain ____" line. That's just too good, usable in many contexts.
> He's not a barista, he's an empty husk that used to contain a barista.
dark dystopian present XD
To each their own, but this is my favorite kinds of videos. I like all the 'nerdy' in detail specifics, all the talking and the detailed analysis of everything.
I can see how this might be difficult for you to juggle with, as 'we' the viewers all got our personal preferences as to what we want to watch and the style and format of said videos.
All your videos are interesting and informative (I watch them all), but I prefer the ones like this... maybe because I'm getting old 👴🏻 Age is just a number right? 😄
Thank you for being an amazing source of knowledge about everything medieval and entertaining as well over the years
Take care and best wishes to you and yours from Denmark
Thank you
Great video. It would be interesting to see lead sling bullets Sling vs Armor
Certainly but what a headache, slinging is very much a lost and unrevived art, and more dangerous too.
@@mandowarrior123 the perfect candidate would be Archaic Arms on youtube. He lives in the UK too and is very proficient with a sling
Archaic Arms is the man to collaborate with
Fun but unlikely to achieve anything unless you caught someone off balance. One of the things armours are good at is distributing force over a large area, Plate, mail and arming jackets all distribute force to varying degrees and the combination of them can cope with major impacts. It's possible that being caught on a joint like the elbow where someone is wearing light mail over a padded jack might be disabling but hitting plate would likely be ineffective even if it hits square on.
@@Steve_Coates I take it you don’t sling
Awesome journey of experimentation and practical archaeology, gentlemen!
Leo and Tobias, you and rest of the team, you are heroes of expanding our understanding of our past.
Glorious!
+][+
I only recently stumbled across Arrows vs Armour 1 & 2 (and completely randomly too!) and all I can say is that it was an absolute delight to follow you guys through this, even if it was a pain in the arse on your end. Fantastic job lads
Thanks - appreciated
I like the hyper-focus on the one event. Medeival history is so varied, that trying to cover a wide scope of it ends up resulting in failing to cover any of it. By choosing one event to cover, we end up with genuine coverage, and we can use the data to extrapolate possibilities and give us a better idea, of the wider scope, than what we had before.
I think for many of us, these disclaimers were already briefly noted in the original films, and they go without saying anyway. For casual viewers who may not be as inclined to technicalities and skepticism, I think it is very responsible to clarify the matter so they don't go away with the wrong idea (these videos should be good for a very wide audience, so I'm glad for this follow up). I also simply enjoyed hearing you guys discuss many of the nuances. I could listen to hours of this sort of thing.
Well done. I hope we get more "vs armor" films from yall.
I could hear Tobias Capwell talking about arms and armour all day long.
He is just a likeable guy.
Thank you so much for sharing one the most fun and informative videos about arrows versus armour! I very much admire the attention to historical detail and practical examples.
I'm always amazed at how well and precisely Dr. Toby Capwell can articulate his thoughts on the spot.
You guys are awesome. This kind of discussion (in my opinion) is helping people understand how historical research/science should be done! Curiosity, testing, critical analysis all rolled into one! Wonderful!
What a wonderful bunch of insight you all provide. It is a complex topic. Thank you so much everyone involved!
Watching groups of people who fight in armour now for fun, that stuff falls off or comes loose constantly. The chances that it all stays in place with everything going on in a full scale battle is so incredibly low!
You are such big professionals, so honest with yourselves and to the viewers. It always amazes me how much you can blend entertainment, excitation, professionalism, experimental archaeology, divulgation... and the love you have for what you study and do, transpires the screen, for sure.
Thank you two yet again for all the detail work and clarification and getting the truth out there!
As a demonstration the tests are fine. It shows things like a well trained and highly practiced archer isn't just going to shoot through the eyeslits whenever they want to and that when they do it's more lucky than intended. It informs that the armor and the weapon were both effective and had a reason to be used when they could be used.
I'd like to see how chainmail holds up towards ballistic archery with the arrows simply falling. Surely chainmail would become vital for a large part of any army at that point?
But I've not read all the comments and someone may have made and countered this point already! Great work Tod et al. And thank you to everyone who backed this, it's wonderful
Many, many people have said this already but _thank you_ for doing this work. It's tremendously fascinating, excellent explorative archeology and I can't be more thankful for it and to see what else is coming down the line. You're the _only_ people dealing with this period of history in this manner and it's stupendously helpful for those of us interested in such things.
Extremely happy to see two professional, honest gents explaining things once again and doing another reality check. Especially on something so complex with so many variables.
... but on the other hand makes me sad, as I have small feeling some bellends out there in the internet gave you a grief because of something wasn't in line with their expectations, ideas, etc...
Am I right about? Is that because you are sort of explaining yourself?
Cheers!
I.
It would seem that there are certain people who, whether out of an excess of pedantry or jealousy (I’d guess that the latter is far more likely), feel the need to point out anything that doesn’t make a concrete finding. They don’t seem capable of imagining what a piece of plate would do if it were in front of the maille, even though they had countless examples of it in both of the videos they made. It just seems incredibly petty & counterproductive to point out the failings of an experiment that wasn’t designed to test those kinds of parameters in the 1st place.
@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 Petty indeed... So we have unique opportunity to observe ins and out of arrows vs armour , executed with extremely high level of due diligence, where some obvious unknowns or shortcomings appeared due to nature of the thing, where every well adjusted human being can notice it and re-adjust own expectations and/or outcomes expected, but still some not happy?
Makes you lose frayed ends of faith in the humanity...
Cheers!
I.
This is why in the modern battle space the infantry are drilled on how important spacing is. It is built on the history of war.
It was only needed after the musketes and other firearms came in great numbers. Until then, if you had not organised your troops into strict formations, you were doomed.
@@darklysm8345 Think you better look at the US Civil War, the US Revolution then there is the Napoleonic Wars all strict formations and heavy musket and cannon then you have early WW1. The patrol spacing is a newer (WW2) tactic to counter artillery and land mines and air to ground attack.
To add on to the conversation:
Extended order lines (2 ranks deep) became the default infantry formation in the 1870s (before ww1), which would shift 1 single rank line for fireing (known as 'rank entire'). For example the British army in the Zulu war of 1879 faught 4 paces between men (~3.5 yards) when in rank entire formation (ie when shooting).
This spaceing was driven by the need to manuevre, all infantry had effectively become light infantry by this point, which itself was made possible/nessiary by the rate of fire and accuracy of breech loading rifles.
Expossive artillery forced the adoption of 'artillery formation' which saw an even larger extension of 5 yards between men. However due to the inaccuracies of artillery even in ww1 (aswell as coordination), this spaceing was never adopted while shooting rifles (because if the enemy was close enough for you to shoot rifles at them, you would be too for the enemie's artillery to safely shoot you without friendly fire). Arillery formaiton was a type of column formaiton (of 2 files), ment for manure on the front, but outside of direct combat. Typically a platoon would have it's sections in a diamond patten spread out, while the indivudla sections would be in columns.
Combat formations were closer order within the sections but unlike earlier victorian era warfare the sections and platoons were more spread out. Squads and platoons maneuvering relatively indepedantly and spaced out (compared to earlier company manuevres) pre-dates ww1 however, By about 1900 most armies operated this way. This is basically modern tactics and formations, but the spaceing between units was still too small during the war and would increase, but comunication limitations still resulted in denser company deployments than in modern times. It's radios/etc decreasing in size and weight that allow modern style unit dispersion.
I forgot to remove 'before ww1' after I desided to be mroe specific and write 'during the late 1870s'
The Romans drilled Legionaries in loose & open order, skirmish tactics, as well as the better known heavy infantry tactics.
Not sure what prompted the first part of this, but I quite enjoyed the work you guys have done. My imagination has such a better picture of how this would happen. The sound alone was totally unexpected
Yes, it is not a scientific study nor could it ever have been. But it still is by far the most comprehensive study of the effects arrows can have on armour. Great video series! I enjoyed it greatly.
Loved the AvA2 films, loved my arrow head plaque, loved all three of Dr Toby's books. Keep it up.
Thanks for supporting it
This is the quality, thoughtful, from first principles content I come to this channel for.
That was a great video. Thanks for the follow up. Super interesting
One of the best things about the original film is that it prompted so much more discussion. In the comments, but also follow up videos from you and others. Nothing is truly definitive at the end of the day, you can't really have that with so many unknowns about the history of weapons and armor, but this kind of experiment helps getting closer. In some ways it's almost like retracing the steps of evolution in military technology. As Dr. Capwell pointed out, much of this development historically was made on a trial and error basis and based on people's perception. They probably drew conclusions the same way you did in that film. It's not a bad way to try thinking as they might have thought.
I find it interesting that people were focused so much on individual strikes. When I watched arrows vs. armor 2, my takeaway was not that any individual arrow was guaranteed to do this or that, but instead that you guys pretty conclusively proved that if a lot of arrows were fired at an armored knight, many would pierce various parts of his body even if the central core was fairly well protected.
Which is ultimately the primary purpose of armour- keep the bloke inside alive when on the wrong side of the primary threats of the era. Keeping them combat effective is secondary. Keeping them unharmed is tertiary.
What a wonderful demonstration of intellectual humility. Great job to all involved. It was and is really interesting.
At the "We didn't have all the bits of the Armour". Sure! And neither would EVERY single knight on the battlefield, either. So it's cool and still useful to see what "might have" happened in THIS situation with THIS configuration.
An often forgotten part about armour is exactly the famous compromise, we nowadays all too often fall into the maximalist trap. We layer the sturdiest plate on the thickest mail on a gambeson that would put the Michelin man to shame to achieve the impregnable armour; when in reality it's just a great way to die of overheating within 10 minutes.
We have sources of mail shirts worn on nothing but your average linen or silk shirt, we have sources of plate parts worn on everyday clothing, we have sources of soldiers chosing to fight in armour configurations that make absolutely no sense to the modern eye, trading protection for mobility, temperature management and most outrageously, style, fashion and coolness.
Landsknecht
I backed this project and I think you made an amazing set of videos! Great job!
I agree it's not science. But I would call it something like live or experimental archeology. Where you make a discovery and you speculate about its historical weight, value, and accuracy
Experimental archaeology is an academic discipline. It's a specific thing, and it happens to be scientific. So, no, they couldn't use that term to avoid the burden of scientific rigor.
I do think it is important to remember I never prove anything in my films, as has been pointed out, I just don't work that way. However I see my work in that it shows what may have happened, it is indicative and gets people thinking and talking and as theses comments show repeatedly, that is powerful stuff. I also have the luxury of allowing myself to promote to the 'masses' and this would be harder with dense scientific rigour even if it was in my psyche; which it is not - far too impatient for that
Absolutely fascinating. You're doing a fantastic job of presenting what could have been based on what little we "know" based on drawings and the few artifacts the world has from the period(s.) Thanks Tod.
Let’s go! Love the AvA content
The most educative and interesting part for me in the test was that long bow and infact all bows struggle to penetrate the armor. Its an important distinction when you realize that blackpowder weapons did not. It provides an interesting root cause as to why blackpowder weapons revolutionized warfare in such a short time once introduced.
To Tod and all of the other contributors in this video series. I offer the most sincere and massive Thank You for all of your hard work and research into producing and creating such an incredible video series. Congratulations to all involved. What you've done is tremendous, entertaining, enlightening, and brillantly educational. You have answered many questions and broken many myths. Created to the best of our current knowledge the most scientifically and historically accurate answer to such a simple and yet highly debated question of "can midevil arrows pierce midevil plate armor". This entire endeavor brought together proper professionals and experts. Nothing about this series was ameture. Infact by bringing into the equation and conversation Dr Toby Capwell the entire series was highly lifted through his professional historical expertise and his personal experience in armored fighting. Truly an amazing series, once again thank you all for creating it.
As a side note, one thing i really enjoyed was when a question arose that couldnt be definitely answered instead of BSing everyone you all simply said "we don't know". This shows humilty and to me a level of professionalism that is unfortunately sorely lacking in many educational and research institutions.
Man i can't believe it. I just finished an awful stretch at work, i sit to dine on braised ribs and this drops! Never been happier in my life. Sorry if the comment doesn't add much, im just very excited
What’s exciting to me in this and the previous series, is basically the historical reenactment and analysis of the design evolution of this equipment in real time.
Although rare now, cutting edge arrows, bows, and armour would all have been available at the time for just such tests, allowing constant adjustments and improvements in geometry and materials to be made.
This empirical research also provides information to historians and archaeologists, so allow them to look for clues on historical pieces for evidence of the actual performance of these materials in their intended settings.
On the secondary effects, was there a decibel meter in the helmet? I thought there was but maybe it was just the go-pro. It would be interesting to hear how loud it gets when a helmt is struck by an arrow.
I would imagine it as probably bell ringing loud. 😵💫
Yes there was, but we only got one reading, but an arrow strike on the helm only showed mid 90's
I loved the first AvsA and the 2nd was even better! Truly brilliant stuff! But there is one thing that itches me in a wrong way and I don't know why, but the title says 6 months later and you are wearing winter clothing, but the date of the video is mid june, even England gets warm in that period so are you in some land "down under" or is this not really 6 months later?
Love the channel, your stuff should be shown in schools!
We had a little bit of moggy weather happen recently. Could have been filmed then?
Got to remember the original ava2 video was filmed earlier than when they released on TH-cam too.
It must have been filmed just before the heatwave but it still looks funny
That's the weather in the UK for you, changes every 5 minutes! Joking aside, the truth is sometimes these things take time to get through the "edit queue". This was shot in February 2023 and AvA2 was shot in July 2022, so about 6 months between when each of these were filmed. Or, if you prefer, it's also 6 months between when each was published. So hopefully the title isn't too misleading!
@@mchernett I was kidding of course! :D I guessed it must have been in the editing que ;)
And thank you. Well worth all of your very hard work. Fascinating.
I really wanted to see you unleash your archer. His pick of draw weight, arrow head, and targeting at his discretion would've been awesome!
That's Arrows VS Armor Series confirmed, you heard them, lets go!
8:33 Thank you for saying that and that isw what I believe in to which I love it when you showcase differnt weapons and armor from the past as it gives me ideas for my media.
I recently brought the Osprey book for Agincourt, highly recommend, and I'm starting to think based on these videos and that book that the archers were used at first to saturate the French advance to wound, maim,and generally weaken the French esprit de corps, destroy their cohesion and morale. Then once they get really close where the lines meet, then they change tactics. Rather than just aiming in a general direction, they close to fire at individuals in support of the main infantry. Also these videos are briliant!👍
As far as archery and the Hundred Years' War are concerned, can you name any battles other than Agincourt? For example, English archers were decimated in at least three major battles: Patay (1429), Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453).
@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont oddly enough I suspect two battles had similar tactical uses. The first was Shrewsbury in 1403 as initial volleys did thier part until the main bodies closed for CQB. Henry "Hotspur" Percy was shot with an arrow and as far as I'm aware it might have been at close range, at least close enough for a shout to be heard. The other is Towton, in 1461, the Lancs and Yorks exchanged volleys until the Lancs closed due to ineffective archery. The battle was a prolonged fight and the role of archers may have retained this CQB role long after Agincourt. In all fairness this theory is a working one and as they said, armour is wide and varied amongst the opposition and it is clear that anything can happen.
@@sfBE11 Thank you for your very interesting comment.
@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont Yes, you're quite right. English history ignores the lost battles & the fact that the French eventually got their act together & drove us out of France , winning the war.
The book is wonderful! Also, the analysis is very informative. Thank you.
100 points for being so self-critical, but I would really like to stress the responsibility of the viewer on making conclusions. Please don't change the format, keep it unscripted. People (at least in my close circle) are so - absolutel- tired of scripted stuff. One of the main reasons why I can't watch a single show on tv anymore. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
i really liked the arrows vs armour tests, keep up the good work and thanks for all the hard work you do
always a good day to see more medieval sciency stuff with these lads
Thankyou so much for addressing the two excellent response videos and providing links to those. I am heartened to see this progress in a true spirit of inquiry without devolving to a content/view war as this platform could so easily have caused. You could have easily declined to acknowledge responses without harming TH-cam success of AvA2, and you did not.
There is zero chance that I would have encountered either argument had you not done as you did, the two complementary videos and even the comment sections of all involved videos repeatedly bring up minor details, further define subjects and provide a fuller understanding of the context and conditions you are attempting to simulate .
Good science, not perfect, but it rarely is
Great idea Toby! Looking at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396 might be interesting. The French lost both battles. The French knight Boucicaut was captured in both battles. The French made it through the Turkish foot archers (with lighter weight bows and arrows) who were behind stakes and undone by Turkish lancer-archers in reserve. Boucicaut was in charge at Agincourt. Maybe he thought he could repeat that, and there were no reserves at Agincourt to worry about. He was undone by the mud that day.
Heh, the arrows may have been lighter, but I've seen some speculation to the power of those Turkish Composite bows that suggests that we can't confidently say that they necessarily had less draw weight.
@@joshuafair5599 I can. See Karpowicz for some of the best work on the subject. While the hundreds of bows in the Topkapi Palace collection range from 40-240lbs, the range for likely war bows is 90-120, less than the English war bows (most of the Mary Rose bows are in the 140-160 range). And more toward the lower end for mounted archers. The heavier bows are most likely strength training/testing and flight bows. Turkish war arrows from 325-650grains, much less than the 850-1,350 for English arrows. At similar draw lengths and GPP (28 inches and 9 grains of arrow per pound of draw weight) Turkish bows are about 7% faster (175 v 188fps), which may not sound like much but can be very noticeable in practice. I shoot both but prefer the Magyar, Turk, and Tartar composite bows to my longbows.
As far as archery and the Hundred Years' War are concerned, can you name any battles other than Agincourt? For example, English archers were decimated in at least three major battles: Patay (1429), Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453).
@@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont The English lost every battle from 1429 to 1453. At Patay (where 1,500 French defeated 5,000 English), Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire, Beaugency, Gerberoy, Rouen, Formigny, and Castillon (where a French archer killed the English commander. With an axe). How's that? Wait! There's more! The Mongols had more archers (maybe twice as many) at Mohi alone than the English did at Crecy, Poitiers,, and Agincourt combined! ;)
@@mikeorick6898 Thank you for your reply. I have the impression that the battle of Agincourt has supplanted all other medieval battles both in the collective imagination and in the discussions of specialists. Do you think this is justified or do other battles deserve more attention?
Have a nice day!
Tod, I love your work.
I also love Modern History TV.
Like a GoPro in a Helmet, I could not think of a more perfect fit for a collaboration.
I'm looking forward to seeing something down the line.
The best kind of experiment is the one that leaves you with more questions and gives more avenues to explore.
I wonder if one of the key reasons why we don't find many steel heads is that they were worth more.. I could imagine that looters after fights would know that certain arrowheads/arrows are worth quite a bit, so they would be high priority items to pick up. Do we have any sources about what happened to battlefields after a fight?
Stragely enough, steel is actually more susceptible to corrosion than cast iron. Not sure about wrought iron. Perhaps the steel heads rust away more readily?
Another great video Tod!!!
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Thanks again!
Fantastic video again. Thanks to everyone who made it happen. What I find surprising is the number of arrows that fail to penetrate the plate and also the mail armour. Were the medieval chroniclers exaggerating the effect of the longbow?
Guys, i cant belive you are making an appolige video.....for all the work you have done.
I found your origanal videos on this subject very interesting.
How many of the youtube comments section critics were there out there putting even half the time, money and effort into testing 600 year old weapon tech?
Simply put...haters gona hate. I think you guys did fine work.
As far a my thoughts on arrows aginst armor....
Well, not everyone would have had the best armor. Also, thousands of arrows raining down would really drive the horses crazy. Im sure many of these knights would have be thrown from horses in the crazyness and been very vulnerable. Also, i think a guy that can shoot a 120lbs war bow would be pretty dangerious if he had to drop his bow and pick up a sword or ax.
I think the armor was probably pretty good protection, but i wouldnt want to let someone shoot arrows at me.
I think its probably very similar to modern firearms and bodyarmor. Modern armor is very effective, but not perfect and i would still rather not be shot
I don't know how in the hell you're not over a million subscribers
This project is like an archaeological dig: the filming was like the dig; this film is like the experts slowly examining the finds.
Thanks
For some reason Dr. Capwell's whole talk on "the hollow knight" really made me emotional. Knights have always been a huge part of my life, my childhood mind was obsessed with them and I still am, so his commentary made me emotional. Thank you Dr. Capwell, and thank you Mr. Tod for having him on here.
Thanks for this very nice work and content.