Good video. I find the battle of Hastings very fascinating especially with the contrast between the two armies, and the major significant outcome of the battle. Anglos were in a good defensive position and the Normans had mounted knights, which I believe made the difference and gave the Normans victory. Regrettably, the Bayeux Tapestry seems to be the only coherent and credible historical document of the battle, and it was developed many years after Hastings. . Again - good video.
Yeah, I totally agree, this amazing! The way he describes things really helps you imagine what it must have been like to fight in a battle in medieval times. Keep it coming, love this stuff!
some of them yes, not all of them. for all we know the coif could have been separate but worn underneath the main hauberk which makes it look like it was one piece. there is also evidence of hauberk with no coif, plus if you use tapestry as primary evidence it shows hauberks being carried without a coif, as well as the hauberks being looted they never show the coif. you are correct but there are also other options.
@@CommonManTools fair point. Amd i agree, it is hard to see on visual images, either way. So we have evidence in form of a 11th cent. Hauberk without coif? Thats interesting. Do u have the link at hand?
@@juanzulu1318 you're correct that if a coif was present, it was probably integral to the hauberk, but there are numerous illustrations from the period (or close to) outside the Bayeux Tapestry that show hauberks w/o coifs.
That and it seems to have divided into trousers instead of hanging over the knee. Also, it doesn’t look like mail, but some kind of scale armor or padded covering.
The tapestry is odd, the armor does not look like chain mail. Also, it does not hang over the knees but device to trousers instead. Could’ve been some kind of other armor that was temporarily used During that time and location
Very good presentation. I think the hauderk he is wearing may not be corect for the Normans. The Baouxe Tapestry shows armor with short trousers and coifes intigrated to the armor.
You are (most likely) correct sir... based on evidence it is probable that if a warrior had a coif, it was integral to the hauberk. That being said, I used what I had but probably should have clarified! :) And thanks for the compliment!
I came across a video a few months ago with this guy making the argument that the typical medieval gambeson was possibly not as thickly padded as we would assume, or as thick as the ones made today, mainly for stuff like live-steel reenactments, ACL, Buhurt, etc. His theory was that since they were fighting in life-or-death battles, and many of them had been more or less professional soldiers, they would be far more use to the common bumps, bruises, minor cuts, sprains, etc., just viewing such injuries, as well as the more severe injuries like broken bones, deep lacerations, and death as just the hazards of the job; as long as they survived and healed back up relatively quickly, they didn't care about minor injuries. So, they would not really wear such thickly padded gambesons, only caring that the garment provided a decent level of cushioning under the armor (which was transitioning toward rigid plates covering more and more of the body, the plates able to deflect or absorb more of the impacts and distribute the force better), while also allowing for as much range of movement as possible, thus the preferred gambesons would be little more than just a thick layer of material to prevent chaffing and armor-bites. Modern fighters in Buhurt, ACL, etc. on the other hand, would desire thicker padding that gave a lot more cushioning and impact dampening, because they are just fighting for the fun of it, they want to fight on the weekends and still be able to go into work that week, so they would want as much padding and protection as possible, almost trading max mobility for max protection. Honestly, I can see the logic of his argument, it does seem to make some sense, but I would also agree that the medieval warrior would still want a decent level of cushioning to further minimize injuries, and likely the gambesons worn by the typical foot soldier, who often didn't have any armor other than the gambeson and maybe a steel-cap, would need thicker padding, plus I've seen tests where they used weapons on gambesons and unless the blades are razor sharp, they don't cut through the gambesons all that well, though that also depends on how thickly padded they were (how much material the weapon is having to cut through) and the durability of the cloth and cushioning used.
@@glenkyle2789 I'm a SCAdian, my persona is late 12th Century English, mainly Third Crusade under Richard I, but I am fascinated by all history, particularly Norse, Crusades, and Feudal Japan. I also make chainmail and do leatherworking. 😁
I think why the saxon english lost the battle of hastings they had just march to hastings in east Sussex uk from standford bridge and had just defeated the vikings.
"Poor" knights weren't really a thing. A knight in 1066 was a mounted warrior, and if you had the money and personnel to own and operate a war horse you certainly had the money for maille and an appropriate spread of weapons. Lower status warriors would likely be kitted out in standard clothing of the time, woolen outer garments and linen underwear. A helmet would be high on the list of priorities. Spear and shield were the standard weapons every man would carry on the field. Axes and various seax-type knives were the poorer man's sidearm as swords were expensive. There is much debate over the existence of padded gambesons in this era. Different historians will swear that they were either common or did not yet exist, truth be told we simply don't know on this point.
@@calicojack7029 The problem is, with padded gambesons is that they were surely used BEFORE that. Same for castle features. Portcullis were used by Romans and later "Byzantines" (and others in that area), but not until 12th century in Europe. Same goes for machicolations, which were surley used by "Byzantines" by the 10/11th century ... Arabs used them too, Crusaders took the idea then from there and incorperated them into their home countries castles. A mail coif was 10-13th century a classic, wasn't it? But by the 15th century the aventail did completely replace the mail coifs. Aventails were early avaible too! The forefathers of the "Vikings" did use aventail onto their distinct looking helmets. So, there is much room for interpration. And if somebody would do a (good) movie/game it would be ok to include padded gambeson as own armor for 11th century scenario.
@@marvintiger9631 Definitely up for interpretation and I wouldn't begrudge someone for assuming they're there. However, since we have no examples from art, period accounts or archaeological examples, we can't say for sure. Just because we had them both before and after doesn't confirm their existence then.
@@calicojack7029 Yes I see it the same way. But personally I think and that can be 99% is that you could use several layers of wool clothing as padding instead of gambeson. Linen padding for "Normans" and wool for "Norse". Then you are fine. Gambeson in middle Europe were really a thing in the 13th century, especially as stand alone armor.
@@marvintiger9631 Aye, there's a lot of debate in my reenactment society but the general opinion is that a dedicated thick wool tunic is most appropriate for under your maille shirt.
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
Good video. I find the battle of Hastings very fascinating especially with the contrast between the two armies, and the major significant outcome of the battle. Anglos were in a good defensive position and the Normans had mounted knights, which I believe made the difference and gave the Normans victory. Regrettably, the Bayeux Tapestry seems to be the only coherent and credible historical document of the battle, and it was developed many years after Hastings. . Again - good video.
Well Done
Yeah, I totally agree, this amazing! The way he describes things really helps you imagine what it must have been like to fight in a battle in medieval times. Keep it coming, love this stuff!
Somewhere between my 33rd and 38th great grandfather, there was a knight who fought in the norman conquest and the crusades, so cool!
This video is so underrated! It’s of amazing quality and carries so much information! Amazing job!
Thank you so much!
In the 11th cent. the mail coif was part of the hauberk.
some of them yes, not all of them. for all we know the coif could have been separate but worn underneath the main hauberk which makes it look like it was one piece. there is also evidence of hauberk with no coif, plus if you use tapestry as primary evidence it shows hauberks being carried without a coif, as well as the hauberks being looted they never show the coif. you are correct but there are also other options.
@@CommonManTools fair point. Amd i agree, it is hard to see on visual images, either way.
So we have evidence in form of a 11th cent. Hauberk without coif? Thats interesting. Do u have the link at hand?
@@juanzulu1318 you're correct that if a coif was present, it was probably integral to the hauberk, but there are numerous illustrations from the period (or close to) outside the Bayeux Tapestry that show hauberks w/o coifs.
That and it seems to have divided into trousers instead of hanging over the knee. Also, it doesn’t look like mail, but some kind of scale armor or padded covering.
Longbows in the 100 years war were actually usually between 140-170 pounds drawn to the ear.
"FOR THE ALGORITHUM!?!"
The tapestry is odd, the armor does not look like chain mail. Also, it does not hang over the knees but device to trousers instead. Could’ve been some kind of other armor that was temporarily used During that time and location
Very good presentation. I think the hauderk he is wearing may not be corect for the Normans. The Baouxe Tapestry shows armor with short trousers and coifes intigrated to the armor.
You are (most likely) correct sir... based on evidence it is probable that if a warrior had a coif, it was integral to the hauberk. That being said, I used what I had but probably should have clarified! :)
And thanks for the compliment!
I came across a video a few months ago with this guy making the argument that the typical medieval gambeson was possibly not as thickly padded as we would assume, or as thick as the ones made today, mainly for stuff like live-steel reenactments, ACL, Buhurt, etc. His theory was that since they were fighting in life-or-death battles, and many of them had been more or less professional soldiers, they would be far more use to the common bumps, bruises, minor cuts, sprains, etc., just viewing such injuries, as well as the more severe injuries like broken bones, deep lacerations, and death as just the hazards of the job; as long as they survived and healed back up relatively quickly, they didn't care about minor injuries. So, they would not really wear such thickly padded gambesons, only caring that the garment provided a decent level of cushioning under the armor (which was transitioning toward rigid plates covering more and more of the body, the plates able to deflect or absorb more of the impacts and distribute the force better), while also allowing for as much range of movement as possible, thus the preferred gambesons would be little more than just a thick layer of material to prevent chaffing and armor-bites. Modern fighters in Buhurt, ACL, etc. on the other hand, would desire thicker padding that gave a lot more cushioning and impact dampening, because they are just fighting for the fun of it, they want to fight on the weekends and still be able to go into work that week, so they would want as much padding and protection as possible, almost trading max mobility for max protection.
Honestly, I can see the logic of his argument, it does seem to make some sense, but I would also agree that the medieval warrior would still want a decent level of cushioning to further minimize injuries, and likely the gambesons worn by the typical foot soldier, who often didn't have any armor other than the gambeson and maybe a steel-cap, would need thicker padding, plus I've seen tests where they used weapons on gambesons and unless the blades are razor sharp, they don't cut through the gambesons all that well, though that also depends on how thickly padded they were (how much material the weapon is having to cut through) and the durability of the cloth and cushioning used.
Looks like another fellow 11th century armour and weapons nerd. :) Thanks for the commentary. :)
@@glenkyle2789 I'm a SCAdian, my persona is late 12th Century English, mainly Third Crusade under Richard I, but I am fascinated by all history, particularly Norse, Crusades, and Feudal Japan. I also make chainmail and do leatherworking. 😁
I think why the saxon english lost the battle of hastings they had just march to hastings in east Sussex uk from standford bridge and had just defeated the vikings.
I would like to learnme about the armor of a poor knight, no maile.
"Poor" knights weren't really a thing. A knight in 1066 was a mounted warrior, and if you had the money and personnel to own and operate a war horse you certainly had the money for maille and an appropriate spread of weapons.
Lower status warriors would likely be kitted out in standard clothing of the time, woolen outer garments and linen underwear. A helmet would be high on the list of priorities. Spear and shield were the standard weapons every man would carry on the field. Axes and various seax-type knives were the poorer man's sidearm as swords were expensive.
There is much debate over the existence of padded gambesons in this era. Different historians will swear that they were either common or did not yet exist, truth be told we simply don't know on this point.
@@calicojack7029
The problem is, with padded gambesons is that they were surely used BEFORE that.
Same for castle features.
Portcullis were used by Romans and later "Byzantines" (and others in that area), but not until 12th century in Europe.
Same goes for machicolations, which were surley used by "Byzantines" by the 10/11th century ... Arabs used them too, Crusaders took the idea then from there and incorperated them into their home countries castles.
A mail coif was 10-13th century a classic, wasn't it?
But by the 15th century the aventail did completely replace the mail coifs.
Aventails were early avaible too!
The forefathers of the "Vikings" did use aventail onto their distinct looking helmets.
So, there is much room for interpration.
And if somebody would do a (good) movie/game it would be ok to include padded gambeson as own armor for 11th century scenario.
@@marvintiger9631 Definitely up for interpretation and I wouldn't begrudge someone for assuming they're there. However, since we have no examples from art, period accounts or archaeological examples, we can't say for sure. Just because we had them both before and after doesn't confirm their existence then.
@@calicojack7029
Yes I see it the same way.
But personally I think and that can be 99% is that you could use several layers of wool clothing as padding instead of gambeson.
Linen padding for "Normans" and wool for "Norse".
Then you are fine.
Gambeson in middle Europe were really a thing in the 13th century, especially as stand alone armor.
@@marvintiger9631 Aye, there's a lot of debate in my reenactment society but the general opinion is that a dedicated thick wool tunic is most appropriate for under your maille shirt.
Algorithumraid
I was gonna enjoy watching until I saw C.E. get real brother, it's AD.