Most of the time the locals sold them off to the first foreigner, even breaking up pieces in order to maximise profits. Yes, some "archaeologists" and adventurers were real dickheads, like using dynamite to open a tomb. But ask Egyptians what some of their fellow countrymen used to do with looted mummies. I'd rather have something safely in special conditions and care, and not sold off by bits to some private owner or a corrupt black market dealer.
Imagine the shock & confusion of early archaeologists when they had just discovered a piece of Tlingit armor, stitched with lots of Qing dynasty coins 😂😂😂
Not really. Archeologists KNOW history. Distance from CHina to Alaska is very small. ruZZia has stolen Golden Horn region (and called it validovostok), and that's VERY close to Alaska. It was closer to sell the pillaged leathers or purchased leathers to China than go all the way to muscovia. And yes - muscovia, because This is the name - Muscovian Rus - of the country ruled by the Ivan the Terrible dynasty and later by Romanov dynasty. There has been MANY countries that had "X Rus" name. Like Kyivan Rus. All have been under Mongolian Orde domination until 15-16th century.
@@kingandon4279 You two are more than welcome to pack your bags to fly over there and fight. The only thing posting this accomplishes is maybe making yourself feel good for five seconds tops.
One of the misconceptions presented in this video is about the use of steel armor by conquistadors to defeat the Aztecs. This is mostly not true. While some conquistadors had armor and more had helmets, nearly all of those were discarded as wearing it in the heat of central America lead to heat stroke which was more deadly than any blade. As such the Spanish switched to using the same woven cloth type armor as the natives. Plus the majority of the actual fighting was done by natives against natives across most colonized areas. The most effective weapon of Colonizers across the globe was their ability to weaponize the long held hatreds that natives had for each other. The deaths caused directly by Europeans were done mostly unintentionally by disease. After all, it is silly to believe that over a million people could be slaughtered by a few hundred Spaniards without machine guns, and when the limited artillery available at the time was not effective due to lack of maneuverability, especially trying to move such pieces over mountainous terrain. To say otherwise is to say the natives were utterly incompetent at warfare, which they were not.
Cuantos grados crees que hacía en oriente medio? Se quitaron las armaduras? Te quitas la armadura de acero para ponerte una colcha de algodón para evitar el calor ?
@@tercomada la diferencia es que el calor de la región mesoamericana era principalmente calor húmedo, mientras que en medio oriente era calor seco creo yo.
A couple of notes: The use of Jaguar and other animal skins by the Aztec was not as armour. It was more of a show of status and to channel the spirit of the animal who’s skin you were wearing. White armour is a term primarily used to describe armour worn without a surcoat over it. It’s also used to describe armour made in the 15th century Italian style. The black and white armour referred to in the video was more commonly used by less wealthy soldiers rather than nobility. The design was achieved by polishing the areas you wanted to shine through while leaving the other areas black/unfinished and painting over. What you described as the pinnacle of armour design, as worn by nobility, would be gilded and blued armour, with bluing being the practice of changing the metals color through the implementation of heat / chemical substances, and gilding being the chemical bonding of gold to the armour. In terms of later warfare in Europe, contrary to popular belief, the fall in armour use on the battlefield was not due to the implementation of firearms in the capacity that armour was no longer effective. It was primarily because outfitting soldiers with guns rather than armour was more cost effective.
Thanks for the comment! You're right about the jaguar armor, we didn't say it was great protection, of course, it's primarily a way to intimidate the enemy. About the white and black armor, maybe we did get the terms mixed up, it's a complicated topic and we studied Germanic, Italian and English sources and in them the terms are a bit different. But if we did make a mistake, we apologize. About the disappearance of armor - saving money is certainly one reason, but why did kings suddenly decide to start saving money for war? That's all the reasons why armor disappeared from the battlefield, and that's what we want to talk about in this new video😉
Kinda like the roman skirmishers. It was to "Distinguish" them prior to battle. They wore different hides, the freaking lot of them. The wolfskin is whats in movies and games, but they wore board and elephant hides aswell (according to burrial sites). Seems more like hunters marks, than warriors... In my opionion...
And the fact that there were breastplates made to withstand gun shots, but they got so heavy you would only have a frontal plate, and you'd more than likely see them on Calvary units, and as Calvary units saw less and less combat, and as guns got more powerful, even those heavy ones made, were useless.
There is an error with regards to western Black and White armor. Both the "black" and "white" areas were polished. The "white" is untreated steel while the "black" was steel with a blued surface. "Bluing" involves a chemical reaction that makes the surface rust resistant. The most desired color was a medium or dark blue although some may appear black.
Bluing is heat treatment of steel :) Steel doesn't rust, so you are quite right. The blue "hin" is the hue between the hardened steel in my experience. We only made a few hardened tools while I went to school. But blue is (Hardening wise) right before it goes brittle. Meaning it's as un-changable as possible (In steel, not iron) but still not "Glassy". Meaning it won't break with shock, but it will neither bend... (It doesn't bend. It breaks)
@@garryfromwallmart4263 There is a misunderstanding here. Steel gets blue at around 300°C thats true and this can be a side effect of some kinds of heat treatment, even though its really not the ideal temperature to temper steel and is therefore very uncommon, but not unheard of. But thats not what "bluing" means. "Bluing" is indeed a chemical reaction, even though temperature plays a role depending on the techique. You basically create some special sort of stable rust on the steel surface, that is both kinda hard itself and that also prevents further rusting. The black surface of hammers is usually the result of such a treatment.
@@AliothAncalagon Enjoyed the responce, but didn't much help my undestanding of "Bluing" beyond my experiences.. Stable rust sounds neat, like roofing with bronze. Since it doesn't rust to the centre. But... How?..
@@garryfromwallmart4263 The process of producing artifical rust by bluing simply works differently than natural rusting. Classic everyday rust is the result of water vapor in the air inducing an electrochemical process on the surface of the steel. The result is iron oxide, FeO. Most forms of bluing are done in an alkaline environment at high temperature. The chemical result is a compact layer of magnetite, Fe3O4. It simply has different properties than regular rust.
Not "most." Mostly battle casualties and starvation casualties. And the smallpox that the Spaniards brought also killed off huge numbers of the Indian's on THEIR side. @@martinhg98
@@TomasFunes-rt8rd Not at first, but about 60 to 80% of the "aztec" population died. By that I mean the people they had conquered. Since so many of them fell ill and died, it was relatively easy for the Spanish and later other nations to push their new settlements and expansions.
One funny armor : in korea, the joseon dynasty had major tests and the papers used there were never thrown away. Instead, they were used to make armors for peasant infantries. It was actually kinda good since it prevented some arrows and did it's job well too.
Any kind of padding is good. Also gives you something to read while waiting to charge. "Holy smokes! Remember that nerdy kid from our town who went into the gov? He only got a C in math!"
@@MW_Asura Low draw weight bows really suck against even rudimentary padding And even heavy draw weight bow is insufficient to pierce good armour (like steel plates) Archers were important in battles because they could injure horses and light infantry but they were not very useful against heavy infantry or heavy cavlary who’s horses were better protected (in the case of the french at agincourt, the arrows combined with the mudand stakes forced most knights to dismount which essentially turned them into heavy infantry but in the worst of conditions : shitty terrain, no formations and arriving to enemy lines in small number where they could simply be battered to death by numerically superior englishmen with hammers and blunt weapons; and thats despite being initially numerically superior)
2:45 -"unfortunately, there's no evidence that they fought any more than other people of the region." Dude, they fought THE US NAVY !!!!!!!!!!!! Battle of Drummond's Island, 1841. And "Kiribati" is pronounced "Ki-ri-BAS" - and that ain't difficult to learn right here on You Tube in half a minute's basic research.... And the US Navy expedition that fought them sketched the enemy warriors wearing this very rig, so PLEASE go easy on all the speculation about it being some sort of mere tourist trap !!
One thing I wished they mentioned when it got around to full plate armour = Helmet Horror, when those wearing the armour have this sense of entrapment in the helmet and barely breathable slits in the helmet. People would hyper ventilate, panic and basically develop claustrophobia. I’d imagine most who experienced this refuse to wear a helmet after wards. Plate armour may have been historically comfortable… but claustrophobia is a very human condition.
I've never thought about someone might have claustrophobia because of armor. But a family friend used to dive in an old as balls diving suit, and he was the only one in his family still doing it. His son and daughter were terrified of the suit and now I understand why.
You get the added bonus of everyone thinking you're insane and not worth shooting and/or feel sorry for you. So scream real loud or talk gibberish, it'll help
I'm a historian and archaeology nerd. I've only got to second 0:42, and they already made a claim about "prehistoric armour" without there being a shred of evidence for it. Why the hell should anyone wait for any more "facts" coming in when the very first one is already tripe?
You've got a point and may have ruined the video for me as I pause at 2:17 I think it's important for all viewers to remember that despite the professional (or near professional) levels of production displayed in many TH-cam videos, more often than not the facts and logic in content are more akin to a Joe Rogan BS session than a credible documentary.
Mycenaean armor was way ahead of its time. Honestly all of Helena as a whole had pretty good armor. Whether it’s in the classical ages or before in the Bronze Age. Still my favorite looking armor compared to medieval/renaissance armor. There’s something primal about it yet sophisticated. When I hear the word “Warrior” I picture a Hoplite or a Roman legionnaire.
Not really the Romans had a gladiator class armored similarly that wrecked their legions during the rebellion of Spartacus but when slaves with pickaxes were thrown at them it demolished the ranks.
If you consider the fact that you can win a battle without anyone dying but can never win when you are dead, you see that the first thing that logic tells you is that staying alive is the most importand thing in battle.
theTlingit people were the OG Rust-Players. One guy from Facepunch prob saw their armour in an exibit and was like: "DAMN this is what I've been seaching for this whole time, WOOD-Amour!!!"
Well, the main reason why full plate armor disappeared from battlefield are several. The main one is that it was so expensive to produce and you could NOT mass produce it, since it had to be fitted to every person. Early firearms had problem penetrating full plate armor from ranges more then 20 meters.
@@whiteeye3453 Crossbows, actually had more penetration then early (matchlock and some wheel lock) guns. The full set of plate armor cost about as much as rather large herd of cattle. For the same money you could equip and train 20-30 arquebusiers. It worked out same way as M4 Shermans vs Pz VI Tiger. ONE Arquebusier is no match for an armored cavalry man. 20 -30 arquebusiers are more then enough to reliably kill that mounted cavalry. Sure, Out of 30 bullets fired, 10-15 will miss. The rest will hit. Even if there will be no penetrations the sheer force of impact is guaranteed to inflict some fractures and inner organ damage on the cavalry man. Which will render him incapable of fighting, and he will be just finished off. Same way as 1 Sherman tank was no match for 1 Tiger tank. But 20-30 shermans would have no problems dispatching 1 tiger, even if they would loose 7-10 shermans. And yes, Eisenhower wrote that US lost 7-10 shermans for each Tiger.
Incorrect, sort of. in fact by the late medieval period pretty much every soldier on the battle field was wearing quite a bit of armour. Full knightly plate had to be custom fit but for the average man at arms there were plenty of off the shelf options and full plate was impractical for their function. The real reason is plate armour never really went away until the early 1900s. It worked.......it just didn't work well enough since firearms tech just got better and better to the point where the steel had to be so heavy the soldier became useless. The truth is, armour is still worn by most militaries today...........it's just not plate steel. It's synthetic and it's still pretty heavy lol. There was one minor transition there where the armour couldn't keep up to the weapons and to some degree it still doesn't but.....and these videos always get it wrong.........armour doesn't have to be 100% effective to be effective. Anything is better than nothing.
as cute as this is... the first rule in war is to repell. if you repell an attack the enemy usually gives up and leaves. seiges are the exception and rare. they require a massive effort on the attacker... so... repell.
i think we can all agree that the fact armor could break after just one hit is not important at all, infact it has done its job in protecting you from one hit allowing you to strike back where you usualy would have your head cracked instead of your funny coconut helmet for example.
The quilted cotton armor known as ichahuipilli that the aztecs used was actually very effective against most of the weapons in the arsenal of the conquistadors including their guns. In fact it was so effective that spanish soldiers would often discard their metal armor and replace it with the aztec armor.
Armour almost never disapeared. In the 18 and 19 century,regiments of Cuirassiers were everywhere in Europe. Only in the US (civil wars) they did not use them. And in ww1 and 2 there was little use of personal armour. But even now in the Ukraine, infantry uses bulletproof vests.
Yeah, but body armor only became kind of effective recently, as from WW2 to just a decade or two ago, the strength of our weapons just outclassed every type of armour. Even now, every type of shrapnel goes through kevlar like a knife through butter. Every sniper rifle is able to go through every armor, body and armor again.
saying people in 40,000BC wore skins for armour is like saying i'm always armoured, can't you see my jeans and t-shirt? The hides were clothes for them, to help with the cold for instance.
I mean leather and hide coats are really good at absorbing slash and blunt attacks and they probably wore several layers for warmth and protection so when in the hunt they won't get mauled to death by a saber tooth cat instantly. Zulu warriors used hide shields to protect themselves in close combat, so animal skin has always been a choice for protection when you cannot make anything better.
I question how much protection leather or hides can give you. I suppose against crude stone/obsidian/whatever weapons you don't need much for decent protection but i also question the availability of the leathers and hides. Like this stuff wears down and i suspect high ranking people had at most 2 skins. But admitedly this is pure conjecture on my part as my historical interests aren't in the pre-historicand quite frankly i dont know much about it. @@comradetiedanski6038
@@darekwroblewski1090 depends what animal it is from and the climate they are in, each animal's hide thickness is different and how thick the fur is too, but if we are talking about what our ancestors are wearing tens of millennia years ago that offers the best protection and most easiest to get, it will have to be the fur and hide coat that came out of the giant mammonths, their hide and fur offers both adequate warmth and protection from small to medium predators or thorns and small cut from the enviroment. Other types of animal hides worth mentioning are rhino, bear, crocodiles and any large cat hides.
9:50 Firearms - in order to make it resistant to firearms it had to be made thicker and heavier, that's how they transitioned into making only cuirasses for heavy cavalry
it interesting that full plate armor become common only after firearm started to be used at masse. And only went out of regular use two centuries later. While cuirasses was last time used during WW2!
He also needs to learn to pronounce the names of countries before trumpeting them to the whole world. 1:30 - "Kiribati" is pronounced "Ki-ri-BAS", and that ain't difficult to learn right here on You Tube in half a minute's basic research....
Imagine if the Predators movie had these fully armored warriors on one of their hunting worlds all somehow interacting together at the same time trying to survive together.
“Helmets can be broken so it’s probably for ritualistic purposes.” A helmet being broken is better than your skull getting broken. This guys put the best thing they had on their heads for protection.
The most important thing in war is to demoralize your enemy. In most cases, battles aren´t won when all enemies are dead, but when you discouraged them enough fot them to decide to retreat or straight up run away. In medievel times however this usualy meant killing or wounding around 80% of the enemy army without losing too much of your own men, when facing an equal opponents.
Tlingits had plenty of ore around them, thy just didn't know how to produce it. It's not a question a availability, it's a question of advancement, no need to sugarcoat it.
The Kiribati armour was not super stong bc the islanders believed it was a sin to kill eachother, instead they just break legs or arms or leave wounds.
The “ lords “ were not to go to war anymore and not hold there own standing armies to stop “ futile lords “ from uprisings against the king . It was found that encrypting peasants and arming them with guns , training/semi training them was faster and cheaper than having a standing armored and life trained military .
They got rid of full body armor plates because when cannons and firearms got stronger it deemed useless to the armer wearer. With bullets piercing armer and making people slower. So they just scrapped it
Weeeell, technically the Segmentata, whilst very good for the time, was quite rare even at it's peak due to the cost. Most legionnaires wore scale or chain mail
To answer the last question, logistics. Plate armor like that was only used by knights and royals. It could defeat most of the period firearms, but it was ridiculously expensive to manufacture and time consuming to produce. It would be simply unfeasible to supply a whole army with armor such as that
By the renaissance everyone could afford at least half a suit of plate armor with a month salary, a suit of half plate ( helmet, cuirass, long tassets and partial covered arms) was 2 silvers, which was a mercenary salary, in addition to that you could buy it in loans or just rent it
The Aztecs were never defeated in war with the Spanish, thats common history knowledge, neither the Spanish brought any full armour, what they brought was the flu, and other european deceases, they were less than 50 solidiers escaping the Aztecs at the moment when the first "virological warfare" was the main weapon that allow them to capture the Aztec emperor and set a pact with the slaved tribes around the main city to vanquish the Aztecs. The Aztec army was above 500k soldiers trained since birth. Not even with fire weapons and body armour your 500 Spanish soldiers could defeat such an army.
La conquista fue hecha gracias en gran medida por las otras culturas esclavizadas por los aztecas, las enfermedades no fueron propagadas deliberadamente, es un factor lógico hacer contacto con civilizaciones aisladas pero no fue como si llegaran y soltaran enfermedades en las aguas de las que se abastecieran, no como los yankees que si "regalaban" mantas con viruela a los indios, además probablemente los pueblos originarios de América pegasen sus enfermedades hasta el momento desconocidas para los Europeos.
The Aztec actually never used animal skins and hides as clothing/armour, it was considered barbaric to do so. Elite soldiers would wear a tlahuiztli suit decorated with feathers in such a manner that it looked like a certain animal or monster. The quilted cotton armour (ichcahupilli) covered with feathers is not a speculation, it is fact. It was actually good enough for the spanish to use it as well and, according to the conquistadores, was nearly bulletproof (though take note that early firearms had pretty low firepower and often missed completely) and hard to pierce through even with steel weapons.
The reason why some Spaniards used cotton armor was mainly because it did not rust in humid climates and was also cheap and gave reasonable protection against the type of weapons that Native Americans had.
@@pulsarplay5808 Of course, many spaniards couldn't even afford plate armour. Though the richer ones still wore steel and just used the ichcahuipilli underneath (which was the best of both worlds since some mesoamerican projectiles could penetrate steel cuirasses, but not the cotton armour under it)
@@pulsarplay5808 According to the spanish, atlatl javelins/darts and possibly sling projectiles. That kind of occurences would still be very rare tho, the natives didn't even aim for the armour for obvious reasons
@@ahmicqui9396 According to the Spanish? Can you tell me in which chronicles the Spanish say that these weapons go through their steel armor? Can you specify what those sources are?
The Tlingit coin armor wasn’t “ancient history” that archeologists found in a grave. Russian colonists gave the Tlingit the coins in trade, and the Tlingit made the coins into armor to fight the Russians. And Russians commented on the coin armor. When scholars studied the Tlingit I’m sure they were happy to show them the family armor.
We swapped over to the use of fabric because the invention on muskets. The bullets would penetrate the armor and sense the full plate armor was known for being hevy, they naturally dropped them. Midevil armor was expensive (as you sead), hevy, and took a long time to put on and take off. It also had a number of limitations like: limiting vision. It was just better to reduce armor, train on how not to get hit and use what little armor you had to your advantage.
... No, muskets did NOT penetrate plate. It wasn't until long after plate armor faded that firearms could regularly penetrate them. And, even today, many handgun rounds cannot penetrate a breastplate made of similar quality and thickness steel as a 16th century gothic harness's breastplate.
Yes exactly Armour became superfluous, when muskets could penetrate any armour. The armour migh have been arrow proof , but muskets are on another level. Just imagine though if one side at the battle of Waterloo had kept used bows, the battle at that close range would have been over very fast with one side with very few casualties,
Perhaps full armour reached flexibility in high medival. The fully cladded in armour existed since antiquity in form of Cathaphracts. Such practices can reach even further back as there are rumours about Assyrians birthing the concept.
STOP. I had a professor who was a diplomat. He asked the leader of Kiribati about his nation. He was wearing a wrinkled Hawaiian style shirt and stormed off saying “It’s KiriBOSS”. Kiribati is pronounced kitibos
what is actually much more interesting is there is zero technology invested into armored soledier be able to stand properly and not to slide on mud, wet grass ETC. because if he falls that is usually game over in battle/duel, this is super disturbing if you imagine all of them had just super flat shoes with zero at least roughening of them, making them super slippery, is there anyone that can have more info on this problem? because I heard from guys that are into medieval fights its super hard to stay on your feet. BTW this may be one of the reasons why nobility scarcely went down to the ground from their horses in fights amongs other things of course but horse is very good offroad :D
"Donated to british museums" Only an AI-voice could say that phrase without chuckling.
Looted to the British museum
if British could they would take them Pyramids as well but u know:)
Most of the time the locals sold them off to the first foreigner, even breaking up pieces in order to maximise profits. Yes, some "archaeologists" and adventurers were real dickheads, like using dynamite to open a tomb. But ask Egyptians what some of their fellow countrymen used to do with looted mummies. I'd rather have something safely in special conditions and care, and not sold off by bits to some private owner or a corrupt black market dealer.
@Arthur-pc1eh it's falling on deaf ears they'll never understand that. They just want to be angry
darn british people trying to preserve history instead of sacrificing people to gods >:(((
Imagine the shock & confusion of early archaeologists when they had just discovered a piece of Tlingit armor, stitched with lots of Qing dynasty coins 😂😂😂
Not really. Archeologists KNOW history. Distance from CHina to Alaska is very small. ruZZia has stolen Golden Horn region (and called it validovostok), and that's VERY close to Alaska. It was closer to sell the pillaged leathers or purchased leathers to China than go all the way to muscovia.
And yes - muscovia, because This is the name - Muscovian Rus - of the country ruled by the Ivan the Terrible dynasty and later by Romanov dynasty. There has been MANY countries that had "X Rus" name. Like Kyivan Rus.
All have been under Mongolian Orde domination until 15-16th century.
@@trollfake9578 slava ukraini slava ukraini slava ukraini
@@trollfake9578Slava Ukraini
@@kingandon4279 You two are more than welcome to pack your bags to fly over there and fight. The only thing posting this accomplishes is maybe making yourself feel good for five seconds tops.
@@alexanderkorol677 Slava Ukraini, down with ruzzian fascists
"Donated to British museums" Yeah we know what happened.
One of the misconceptions presented in this video is about the use of steel armor by conquistadors to defeat the Aztecs. This is mostly not true. While some conquistadors had armor and more had helmets, nearly all of those were discarded as wearing it in the heat of central America lead to heat stroke which was more deadly than any blade. As such the Spanish switched to using the same woven cloth type armor as the natives.
Plus the majority of the actual fighting was done by natives against natives across most colonized areas. The most effective weapon of Colonizers across the globe was their ability to weaponize the long held hatreds that natives had for each other. The deaths caused directly by Europeans were done mostly unintentionally by disease.
After all, it is silly to believe that over a million people could be slaughtered by a few hundred Spaniards without machine guns, and when the limited artillery available at the time was not effective due to lack of maneuverability, especially trying to move such pieces over mountainous terrain. To say otherwise is to say the natives were utterly incompetent at warfare, which they were not.
Nah the Spanish used dogs to defeat the Aztecs.
@@khandle918The dogs used the spanish to defeat the cats. You got it mixed up.
Cuantos grados crees que hacía en oriente medio? Se quitaron las armaduras?
Te quitas la armadura de acero para ponerte una colcha de algodón para evitar el calor ?
@@tercomada la diferencia es que el calor de la región mesoamericana era principalmente calor húmedo, mientras que en medio oriente era calor seco creo yo.
@@abelvilla2828 sigue siendo calor y encima cambiarlo por una colcha, es como quitarte la camiseta para ponerte un gersei
A couple of notes:
The use of Jaguar and other animal skins by the Aztec was not as armour. It was more of a show of status and to channel the spirit of the animal who’s skin you were wearing.
White armour is a term primarily used to describe armour worn without a surcoat over it. It’s also used to describe armour made in the 15th century Italian style.
The black and white armour referred to in the video was more commonly used by less wealthy soldiers rather than nobility. The design was achieved by polishing the areas you wanted to shine through while leaving the other areas black/unfinished and painting over.
What you described as the pinnacle of armour design, as worn by nobility, would be gilded and blued armour, with bluing being the practice of changing the metals color through the implementation of heat / chemical substances, and gilding being the chemical bonding of gold to the armour.
In terms of later warfare in Europe, contrary to popular belief, the fall in armour use on the battlefield was not due to the implementation of firearms in the capacity that armour was no longer effective. It was primarily because outfitting soldiers with guns rather than armour was more cost effective.
Thanks for the comment! You're right about the jaguar armor, we didn't say it was great protection, of course, it's primarily a way to intimidate the enemy. About the white and black armor, maybe we did get the terms mixed up, it's a complicated topic and we studied Germanic, Italian and English sources and in them the terms are a bit different. But if we did make a mistake, we apologize.
About the disappearance of armor - saving money is certainly one reason, but why did kings suddenly decide to start saving money for war? That's all the reasons why armor disappeared from the battlefield, and that's what we want to talk about in this new video😉
Kinda like the roman skirmishers. It was to "Distinguish" them prior to battle. They wore different hides, the freaking lot of them. The wolfskin is whats in movies and games, but they wore board and elephant hides aswell (according to burrial sites). Seems more like hunters marks, than warriors... In my opionion...
* Early republic velites. Romans never had skirmishers later
_Neeeeeeeaaaaaaaards!_ 😊
And the fact that there were breastplates made to withstand gun shots, but they got so heavy you would only have a frontal plate, and you'd more than likely see them on Calvary units, and as Calvary units saw less and less combat, and as guns got more powerful, even those heavy ones made, were useless.
There is an error with regards to western Black and White armor. Both the "black" and "white" areas were polished. The "white" is untreated steel while the "black" was steel with a blued surface. "Bluing" involves a chemical reaction that makes the surface rust resistant. The most desired color was a medium or dark blue although some may appear black.
Bluing is heat treatment of steel :) Steel doesn't rust, so you are quite right. The blue "hin" is the hue between the hardened steel in my experience. We only made a few hardened tools while I went to school. But blue is (Hardening wise) right before it goes brittle. Meaning it's as un-changable as possible (In steel, not iron) but still not "Glassy". Meaning it won't break with shock, but it will neither bend... (It doesn't bend. It breaks)
@@garryfromwallmart4263 There is a misunderstanding here. Steel gets blue at around 300°C thats true and this can be a side effect of some kinds of heat treatment, even though its really not the ideal temperature to temper steel and is therefore very uncommon, but not unheard of. But thats not what "bluing" means.
"Bluing" is indeed a chemical reaction, even though temperature plays a role depending on the techique. You basically create some special sort of stable rust on the steel surface, that is both kinda hard itself and that also prevents further rusting. The black surface of hammers is usually the result of such a treatment.
@@AliothAncalagon Remind me again. What does AR stand for?
@@AliothAncalagon Enjoyed the responce, but didn't much help my undestanding of "Bluing" beyond my experiences.. Stable rust sounds neat, like roofing with bronze. Since it doesn't rust to the centre. But... How?..
@@garryfromwallmart4263 The process of producing artifical rust by bluing simply works differently than natural rusting.
Classic everyday rust is the result of water vapor in the air inducing an electrochemical process on the surface of the steel. The result is iron oxide, FeO.
Most forms of bluing are done in an alkaline environment at high temperature. The chemical result is a compact layer of magnetite, Fe3O4.
It simply has different properties than regular rust.
When you make the most artistic feline skin armor and also used salt water dipped hardened jackets for protection but it couldn't stop smallpox
Moast soldiers died of desise
Not "most." Mostly battle casualties and starvation casualties. And the smallpox that the Spaniards brought also killed off huge numbers of the Indian's on THEIR side. @@martinhg98
@@TomasFunes-rt8rd Not at first, but about 60 to 80% of the "aztec" population died. By that I mean the people they had conquered. Since so many of them fell ill and died, it was relatively easy for the Spanish and later other nations to push their new settlements and expansions.
1:52 .. many of which were 'donated' to British museums
Oh my sweet summer child...
First armor is from my home country Kirbati. Most people never of it cause we're a small island group. But full with culture!
Love you man
Very nice, man! Thank you for sharing.
knowing the pronunciation of kiribati did make me cringe when i heard this guy try to pronounce it haha
One funny armor : in korea, the joseon dynasty had major tests and the papers used there were never thrown away. Instead, they were used to make armors for peasant infantries. It was actually kinda good since it prevented some arrows and did it's job well too.
It makes sense as a thick book can block a low calibre firearm bullet.
但如果下雨或潮湿的天气，那就好笑了😂
Any kind of padding is good. Also gives you something to read while waiting to charge. "Holy smokes! Remember that nerdy kid from our town who went into the gov? He only got a C in math!"
That says something either about the armour or the arrows and bows 😂
@@MW_Asura
Low draw weight bows really suck against even rudimentary padding
And even heavy draw weight bow is insufficient to pierce good armour (like steel plates)
Archers were important in battles because they could injure horses and light infantry but they were not very useful against heavy infantry or heavy cavlary who’s horses were better protected (in the case of the french at agincourt, the arrows combined with the mudand stakes forced most knights to dismount which essentially turned them into heavy infantry but in the worst of conditions : shitty terrain, no formations and arriving to enemy lines in small number where they could simply be battered to death by numerically superior englishmen with hammers and blunt weapons; and thats despite being initially numerically superior)
2:45 -"unfortunately, there's no evidence that they fought any more than other people of the region." Dude, they fought THE US NAVY !!!!!!!!!!!! Battle of Drummond's Island, 1841. And "Kiribati" is pronounced "Ki-ri-BAS" - and that ain't difficult to learn right here on You Tube in half a minute's basic research.... And the US Navy expedition that fought them sketched the enemy warriors wearing this very rig, so PLEASE go easy on all the speculation about it being some sort of mere tourist trap !!
One thing I wished they mentioned when it got around to full plate armour = Helmet Horror, when those wearing the armour have this sense of entrapment in the helmet and barely breathable slits in the helmet.
People would hyper ventilate, panic and basically develop claustrophobia.
I’d imagine most who experienced this refuse to wear a helmet after wards. Plate armour may have been historically comfortable… but claustrophobia is a very human condition.
I've never thought about someone might have claustrophobia because of armor. But a family friend used to dive in an old as balls diving suit, and he was the only one in his family still doing it. His son and daughter were terrified of the suit and now I understand why.
I've had helmet horror it's not fun
My goal in a battle is to die as quickly as possible thats why i fight naked
You get the added bonus of everyone thinking you're insane and not worth shooting and/or feel sorry for you. So scream real loud or talk gibberish, it'll help
Eating special shrooms should help too... Turn him into a berserker!
@@Cavscout5096 Just stay away from banquets or some white hair guy might come to teach you guestly manners.
Actually the aim is to break the fighting spirit of the enemy the killing as many as possible happens when they flee .
I'm a historian and archaeology nerd. I've only got to second 0:42, and they already made a claim about "prehistoric armour" without there being a shred of evidence for it. Why the hell should anyone wait for any more "facts" coming in when the very first one is already tripe?
You've got a point and may have ruined the video for me as I pause at 2:17
I think it's important for all viewers to remember that despite the professional (or near professional) levels of production displayed in many TH-cam videos, more often than not the facts and logic in content are more akin to a Joe Rogan BS session than a credible documentary.
I was in Athens a few weeks ago and I saw one of the helmets that goes with that Mycenaean armor at the Athens museum of antiquities
Mycenaean armor was way ahead of its time. Honestly all of Helena as a whole had pretty good armor. Whether it’s in the classical ages or before in the Bronze Age. Still my favorite looking armor compared to medieval/renaissance armor. There’s something primal about it yet sophisticated. When I hear the word “Warrior” I picture a Hoplite or a Roman legionnaire.
Not really the Romans had a gladiator class armored similarly that wrecked their legions during the rebellion of Spartacus but when slaves with pickaxes were thrown at them it demolished the ranks.
Legionary.
@@SethSwanson-hq1it I don’t mean any offense but I’m not sure what you’re arguing against
@@jft4820 what? Lol
@@jft4820 a legionnaire is a single Roman unit lol are you trying to correct my spelling? When it’s not wrong? Lol
If you consider the fact that you can win a battle without anyone dying but can never win when you are dead, you see that the first thing that logic tells you is that staying alive is the most importand thing in battle.
“Donated to the British Museum” 😂
the aztecs also used salt armor which was a substance with crystallized salt on it to create an impenetrable mass
It turned out quite penetrable.
Hey it's the lord of hunger... you still hangry bro?
@@huntclanhunt9697 well, against the weapons used by the Aztecs, against muskets, a snooze was useless
theTlingit people were the OG Rust-Players. One guy from Facepunch prob saw their armour in an exibit and was like: "DAMN this is what I've been seaching for this whole time, WOOD-Amour!!!"
Well, the main reason why full plate armor disappeared from battlefield are several. The main one is that it was so expensive to produce and you could NOT mass produce it, since it had to be fitted to every person. Early firearms had problem penetrating full plate armor from ranges more then 20 meters.
Not only that but also when firearms were widespread
Many finded solutions to stop penetrecion of course
These solution were expensive that guns
@@whiteeye3453 Crossbows, actually had more penetration then early (matchlock and some wheel lock) guns. The full set of plate armor cost about as much as rather large herd of cattle. For the same money you could equip and train 20-30 arquebusiers. It worked out same way as M4 Shermans vs Pz VI Tiger. ONE Arquebusier is no match for an armored cavalry man. 20 -30 arquebusiers are more then enough to reliably kill that mounted cavalry. Sure, Out of 30 bullets fired, 10-15 will miss. The rest will hit. Even if there will be no penetrations the sheer force of impact is guaranteed to inflict some fractures and inner organ damage on the cavalry man. Which will render him incapable of fighting, and he will be just finished off. Same way as 1 Sherman tank was no match for 1 Tiger tank. But 20-30 shermans would have no problems dispatching 1 tiger, even if they would loose 7-10 shermans. And yes, Eisenhower wrote that US lost 7-10 shermans for each Tiger.
@@lordpardus7348 no crossbow could not penetrate plate armor
But mail yes
Incorrect, sort of. in fact by the late medieval period pretty much every soldier on the battle field was wearing quite a bit of armour. Full knightly plate had to be custom fit but for the average man at arms there were plenty of off the shelf options and full plate was impractical for their function. The real reason is plate armour never really went away until the early 1900s. It worked.......it just didn't work well enough since firearms tech just got better and better to the point where the steel had to be so heavy the soldier became useless. The truth is, armour is still worn by most militaries today...........it's just not plate steel. It's synthetic and it's still pretty heavy lol. There was one minor transition there where the armour couldn't keep up to the weapons and to some degree it still doesn't but.....and these videos always get it wrong.........armour doesn't have to be 100% effective to be effective. Anything is better than nothing.
@@MrBottlecapBill it's matter of economic
as cute as this is... the first rule in war is to repell. if you repell an attack the enemy usually gives up and leaves.
seiges are the exception and rare. they require a massive effort on the attacker... so... repell.
Very good, thanks. Pure information, just the way I try to work.
The IMCF World Championships are very cool. Even without having fully sharpened weapons, the medieval combats with full armor are crazy.
i think we can all agree that the fact armor could break after just one hit is not important at all, infact it has done its job in protecting you from one hit allowing you to strike back where you usualy would have your head cracked instead of your funny coconut helmet for example.
The quilted cotton armor known as ichahuipilli that the aztecs used was actually very effective against most of the weapons in the arsenal of the conquistadors including their guns. In fact it was so effective that spanish soldiers would often discard their metal armor and replace it with the aztec armor.
Armour almost never disapeared. In the 18 and 19 century,regiments of Cuirassiers were everywhere in Europe. Only in the US (civil wars) they did not use them. And in ww1 and 2 there was little use of personal armour. But even now in the Ukraine, infantry uses bulletproof vests.
Yeah, but body armor only became kind of effective recently, as from WW2 to just a decade or two ago, the strength of our weapons just outclassed every type of armour. Even now, every type of shrapnel goes through kevlar like a knife through butter. Every sniper rifle is able to go through every armor, body and armor again.
@@skyper8934 but still they are widely used by both sides.
@@pvlgs yet they aren't effective. They serve more as a "morale boosters" then anything
saying people in 40,000BC wore skins for armour is like saying i'm always armoured, can't you see my jeans and t-shirt? The hides were clothes for them, to help with the cold for instance.
I mean leather and hide coats are really good at absorbing slash and blunt attacks and they probably wore several layers for warmth and protection so when in the hunt they won't get mauled to death by a saber tooth cat instantly. Zulu warriors used hide shields to protect themselves in close combat, so animal skin has always been a choice for protection when you cannot make anything better.
I question how much protection leather or hides can give you. I suppose against crude stone/obsidian/whatever weapons you don't need much for decent protection but i also question the availability of the leathers and hides. Like this stuff wears down and i suspect high ranking people had at most 2 skins. But admitedly this is pure conjecture on my part as my historical interests aren't in the pre-historicand quite frankly i dont know much about it. @@comradetiedanski6038
@@darekwroblewski1090 depends what animal it is from and the climate they are in, each animal's hide thickness is different and how thick the fur is too, but if we are talking about what our ancestors are wearing tens of millennia years ago that offers the best protection and most easiest to get, it will have to be the fur and hide coat that came out of the giant mammonths, their hide and fur offers both adequate warmth and protection from small to medium predators or thorns and small cut from the enviroment. Other types of animal hides worth mentioning are rhino, bear, crocodiles and any large cat hides.
Calls greek bronze armour bucket while nothing for alaskan armour of wooden slats that literally resembles a bucket.
9:50 Firearms - in order to make it resistant to firearms it had to be made thicker and heavier, that's how they transitioned into making only cuirasses for heavy cavalry
it interesting that full plate armor become common only after firearm started to be used at masse. And only went out of regular use two centuries later. While cuirasses was last time used during WW2!
Full plate came before mass fire arms and unless you count jousting armor ... maybe 150 years. The later are not full but 3/4
@@sirtaelellevalerie1056SN42? 😊
Great Video Bro!
‘Donated’ to the British museum
The donating to the British sounds very sus...lot of things the British claim was donated.
Medieval and Renaissance armors were flexible that some people today showed you can do parkour in them
this guy needs more veiwers his vids are mad good
He also needs to learn to pronounce the names of countries before trumpeting them to the whole world. 1:30 - "Kiribati" is pronounced "Ki-ri-BAS", and that ain't difficult to learn right here on You Tube in half a minute's basic research....
Guarantee the english museum that recieved the fish helmet from Kiribati didn't get it from a donation.
dude casually name dropping Argolida like that helps anyone find it on a map. "Argolida, near Athens"
Imagine if the Predators movie had these fully armored warriors on one of their hunting worlds all somehow interacting together at the same time trying to survive together.
Ah yes tube armor, some might call him crazy, is he mad? No! He's insane!
*Proceeds to steamroll the enemy army*
wich
´white rigth
"donated" to the British museum..
Imagine telling these people that one day we would have weapons that make any armour useless..
Informative and educational. Thanks for uploading. New subscriber.
“Helmets can be broken so it’s probably for ritualistic purposes.” A helmet being broken is better than your skull getting broken. This guys put the best thing they had on their heads for protection.
Cool video! Subscribed. Now do a video about the iron fist of Götz von Berlichingen.
I don't think anthropologist said it took "hundreds of cocoons to make a set" 🤣🐡🥥🦋🤣
There's also a fish skin armour used by Tribes in Pacific island
Plate armor like that was only used by knights and royals. It could defeat most of the period firearms and guns
The most important thing in war is to demoralize your enemy. In most cases, battles aren´t won when all enemies are dead, but when you discouraged them enough fot them to decide to retreat or straight up run away. In medievel times however this usualy meant killing or wounding around 80% of the enemy army without losing too much of your own men, when facing an equal opponents.
If the Aztecs had the capability to make metal armor they certainly would have.
Tlingits had plenty of ore around them, thy just didn't know how to produce it. It's not a question a availability, it's a question of advancement, no need to sugarcoat it.
Permafrost is a major reason as to why as well. Hard to dig into frozen ground. They did use surface deposits of iron copper and other materials.
"donated" to british meuseums.
I can't believe he made this video and didn't include the Haida Gwaii shocktroopers.
Great idea! Thank you! we are just looking for top armor in the next video :)
The Kiribati armour was not super stong bc the islanders believed it was a sin to kill eachother, instead they just break legs or arms or leave wounds.
Donated to British museum 😢
Why not where they belong
"Donated to British museum"
Who are you kidding?
Because the introduction of gunpowder made armor obsolete.
The “ lords “ were not to go to war anymore and not hold there own standing armies to stop “ futile
lords “ from uprisings against the king . It was found that encrypting peasants and arming them with guns , training/semi training them was faster and cheaper than having a standing armored and life trained military .
If you are dead, you cannot kill enemies anymore.
They got rid of full body armor plates because when cannons and firearms got stronger it deemed useless to the armer wearer. With bullets piercing armer and making people slower. So they just scrapped it
Logically if you stay alive longer you can kill more enemies.
1:52
"Donated"
Segmentata was WAY ahead of it's time... The Dacians did not care though because they just chopped straight through it all with the mighty falx...
Weeeell, technically the Segmentata, whilst very good for the time, was quite rare even at it's peak due to the cost. Most legionnaires wore scale or chain mail
6:24: the enemy is approaching... Bring me my " angry birds" helmet.
To answer the last question, logistics. Plate armor like that was only used by knights and royals. It could defeat most of the period firearms, but it was ridiculously expensive to manufacture and time consuming to produce. It would be simply unfeasible to supply a whole army with armor such as that
By the renaissance everyone could afford at least half a suit of plate armor with a month salary, a suit of half plate ( helmet, cuirass, long tassets and partial covered arms) was 2 silvers, which was a mercenary salary, in addition to that you could buy it in loans or just rent it
@@anthuan2028 I feel that supply and demand would probably kick in there though.
@@kylejaynes yeah in the 16th century plate armor was in high demand for all the economic classes
@@anthuan2028 huh. Didn’t know that
@@anthuan2028 I guess that’s fair given conquistadors
pls make the video about why woolen uniform replaced armor! great video
the laugh i screamed when he said DONATED to british Museums
"100's of cocoons" 😂😂😂
The Aztecs were never defeated in war with the Spanish, thats common history knowledge, neither the Spanish brought any full armour, what they brought was the flu, and other european deceases, they were less than 50 solidiers escaping the Aztecs at the moment when the first "virological warfare" was the main weapon that allow them to capture the Aztec emperor and set a pact with the slaved tribes around the main city to vanquish the Aztecs. The Aztec army was above 500k soldiers trained since birth. Not even with fire weapons and body armour your 500 Spanish soldiers could defeat such an army.
La conquista fue hecha gracias en gran medida por las otras culturas esclavizadas por los aztecas, las enfermedades no fueron propagadas deliberadamente, es un factor lógico hacer contacto con civilizaciones aisladas pero no fue como si llegaran y soltaran enfermedades en las aguas de las que se abastecieran, no como los yankees que si "regalaban" mantas con viruela a los indios, además probablemente los pueblos originarios de América pegasen sus enfermedades hasta el momento desconocidas para los Europeos.
"donated to british museums" 😂😂😂
Why did plate armor go away....uh, bullets?
"donated to british museums" riiiiiight
1:54 """"Donated""""" to British museum
“Donated to British museum” sure it was
''Donated to british museum''
1:51 "Donated" to British museums is a funny way to say stolen.
You make it sound like the Aztecs could have worn metal armor if they wanted, but chose not to for some reason.
The Aztec actually never used animal skins and hides as clothing/armour, it was considered barbaric to do so. Elite soldiers would wear a tlahuiztli suit decorated with feathers in such a manner that it looked like a certain animal or monster.
The quilted cotton armour (ichcahupilli) covered with feathers is not a speculation, it is fact. It was actually good enough for the spanish to use it as well and, according to the conquistadores, was nearly bulletproof (though take note that early firearms had pretty low firepower and often missed completely) and hard to pierce through even with steel weapons.
The reason why some Spaniards used cotton armor was mainly because it did not rust in humid climates and was also cheap and gave reasonable protection against the type of weapons that Native Americans had.
@@pulsarplay5808 Of course, many spaniards couldn't even afford plate armour. Though the richer ones still wore steel and just used the ichcahuipilli underneath (which was the best of both worlds since some mesoamerican projectiles could penetrate steel cuirasses, but not the cotton armour under it)
@@ahmicqui9396 Can you tell me what kind of Native American weapon could penetrate a steel armor?
@@pulsarplay5808 According to the spanish, atlatl javelins/darts and possibly sling projectiles. That kind of occurences would still be very rare tho, the natives didn't even aim for the armour for obvious reasons
@@ahmicqui9396 According to the Spanish? Can you tell me in which chronicles the Spanish say that these weapons go through their steel armor? Can you specify what those sources are?
The Tlingit coin armor wasn’t “ancient history” that archeologists found in a grave. Russian colonists gave the Tlingit the coins in trade, and the Tlingit made the coins into armor to fight the Russians. And Russians commented on the coin armor. When scholars studied the Tlingit I’m sure they were happy to show them the family armor.
One reason woolen coats replaced armour is armies increased in size and wool was cheaper
Aztecs didn't use metals because they had little to no access to it. She the skins were not in any way armor
Many of which where “DONATED” to British museums💀💀💀
We swapped over to the use of fabric because the invention on muskets. The bullets would penetrate the armor and sense the full plate armor was known for being hevy, they naturally dropped them. Midevil armor was expensive (as you sead), hevy, and took a long time to put on and take off. It also had a number of limitations like: limiting vision. It was just better to reduce armor, train on how not to get hit and use what little armor you had to your advantage.
... No, muskets did NOT penetrate plate. It wasn't until long after plate armor faded that firearms could regularly penetrate them. And, even today, many handgun rounds cannot penetrate a breastplate made of similar quality and thickness steel as a 16th century gothic harness's breastplate.
Yes exactly Armour became superfluous, when muskets could penetrate any armour. The armour migh have been arrow proof , but muskets are on another level. Just imagine though if one side at the battle of Waterloo had kept used bows, the battle at that close range would have been over very fast with one side with very few casualties,
Perhaps full armour reached flexibility in high medival. The fully cladded in armour existed since antiquity in form of Cathaphracts. Such practices can reach even further back as there are rumours about Assyrians birthing the concept.
STOP. I had a professor who was a diplomat. He asked the leader of Kiribati about his nation. He was wearing a wrinkled Hawaiian style shirt and stormed off saying “It’s KiriBOSS”. Kiribati is pronounced kitibos
"Donated" to the Brittish museum
what is actually much more interesting is there is zero technology invested into armored soledier be able to stand properly and not to slide on mud, wet grass ETC. because if he falls that is usually game over in battle/duel, this is super disturbing if you imagine all of them had just super flat shoes with zero at least roughening of them, making them super slippery, is there anyone that can have more info on this problem? because I heard from guys that are into medieval fights its super hard to stay on your feet.
BTW this may be one of the reasons why nobility scarcely went down to the ground from their horses in fights amongs other things of course but horse is very good offroad :D
the British have it so easy, they just go to already inhabited islands and randomly find or receive stuff for their museums
Maybe a dumb question but how did the islanders get so many shark teeth before we got real good at killing all animals?
Love the logo
The thumbnail presents 6 sets of Bear hunting armor. The video doesn't include them.
That isn’t actually bear hunting armour. It’s from an art installation.
Let's bring armour back as day to day use
@4:30 OMG that armor was awesome went right through that chariot didn't even flinch!
Spain defeated the Aztecs...with the help of the pissed off neighboring tribes.
some enemies would have laughed to death
Donated to the british museum
Note: kitibati is readed kiribass and its inhabitants are called gilbertese
''Donated"...yeah, they weren't donated voluntarily
1:53 Donated to british museum means, stolen by the british.
Imagine soldiers with full metal armor that could block bullets! They have mechanical leg braces that could help a soldier move in heavy metal armor.