It seems like that extra layers of leather or leather with glass and iron could be worthwhile over where you arm rests, and then without leather everywhere else so it doesn't get super heavy.
This would be like a metal bose in essence but leather based instead of fabric. Not sure about historical accuracy though. I suspect if you had chainmail on the arm area the regular shield might cover it. So in essence this could be a poorer man's arm protection.
This is an interesting thought. Though armor on the arm would both be easier to carry and likely do the same or better job for the same or less weight.
@@JanoTuotanto On the one hand a stationary shield. On the other, a much larger shield, and used where an arrow sticking through 20cm is less a problem.
But he certainly didn't do himself any favors by making the different bands so unevenly spaced. If would have tried to make each band as close to the same size as each other as possible to make hitting each band a bit easier.
5:50 WHat you have to remember also is that in this test every hit is a complete worst-case scenario; perfect aim, perfect angle, and still it only gets through that little. Also: even if that arrow does manage to wound you, it's a scrape on your arm whereas with a lesser shield it might be arm-shattering damage. It's a bit like complaining that your car's seatbelt is too tight: the alternative is to fly through the windshield. Take your pick.
Excellent comment! Much to often we take tests that are being performed under "perfect storm" conditions and stamp them (beyond any doubt) as a standard occurrence in a battlefield scenario. Again, great comment! Cheers!
These are also at relatively close range and without any angle, like you might be getting if somebody is shooting down a wall at you, in battle, or what not. If you're at these ranges against archers, those archers are going to be shitting bricks.
Agreed - this is in the worst state for the shield, but then we can know what it does in the worst case. Of course if you angle it etc, it will always be better
My grandfather taught me to mix black sand with heated pitch and to use that as a binder for the boiled leather to the planks. He said it was how Northmen made arrow proof shields. He would also sprinkle crushed coal powder on his anvil when forging so maybe he was just nuts. 😂
You can use coal powder when drifting holes while forging. If you try to punch a hole into a solid piece of steel, what happens quite often is that your punch might get stuck. To prevent that you can use a lubricant. There are dozens of modern ones, an old one is simply charcoal that has been crushed. You put the coal into the hole that you are punching and because of the heat it will start to ignite and create a gas. If you now add the punch on top of that and hit the whole thing with a hammer you will seal of a tiny pocket in which the gas is being compressed, it pushes against the punch and therefore prevents it from getting stuck. Learned that in blacksmithing school, works like a charm :) Maybe that 's what he did?
Very interesting tests! Normally I consider extra weight quite a hindrance in combat, but for that type of shield it's less of a problem. Large center-grip shields like the scutum could easily weigh twice as much as the reinforced heater shield you made (granted, for more protection). A strapped shield is easier to hold, especially with a guige strap. So it might be worth the extra protection. Then again like you said, with armor the arm underneath might be safe even in case of the lighter version.
sorry but have you ever held a shield for more than an hour? battles do tend to wear you down in many other ways and i think there is a good reason why weight has always been a major concern for shields and armour. even without considering the hindrance in combat that you already mentioned
@Skallagrim Are you allowed to associate with Tod, considering your questionable political stances on certain things in the past? I know Matt Easton is purging the impure, I was wondering if this was true of everyone in the sword community.
Tod, what if you cover just a small portion of the shield with armor. For example you could cover the narrow arm band in the center with the armor, to better protect your arm, and the upper left corner, to better protect your face and so the arrows don't get in the way when trying to maneuver the shield into a position in front of your face. You could reduce the excess weight of the shield while still retaining the increased pen resistance in the places you would need it the most: The places where the shield is in close proximity to your body.
So this begs the question, why not put an iron sheet under the shield where the wrist is? The answer is probably the expense but.... I think I would be happy paying a bit more.
@@papalaz4444244I would imagine leather was very much cheaper than iron or steel so if it preformed the same at iron why not use the cheaper material. I may be off base and I’m sure there are places and times where metal was cheaper or a comparable price to leather
@@nickbob2003 By the English civil war metal armour was cheaper then buff coats. But people went for the nice, warm, flexible and not really armour buff coats over the hard metal armour.
@@papalaz4444244 You would want the metal sheet on the outer side of the shield to make use of its deflective properties. If it were placed between shield and arm padding, it's little more than an extra layer and you might as well just go with cheaper options. And indeed this is something that was done. Round shields typically had shield bosses, and kite shields often did, too. I'm not sure how common this was for heater shields, but I would also assume the answer to this is probably expense. If you were willing to spend more on a shield, you would likely pick a larger kite shield over a smaller heater with a boss. I would think a larger surface area is a better justification for the extra weight.
I've seen several sources that indicate the weight of a heater shield as around 8 lbs. That seems like about the weight you might get with the half tanned leather and no glass or iron. That seems like a good compromise between weight and extra protection.
@@markcorrigan3930 I've seen scutum (Roman heavy shields) being listed at as much as 20 lbs, but I am not sure about Greek and Celtic. Bear in mind those were often larger overall (compared to heater shields), though.
@@gmanbo TH-cam appears to have eaten my reply. I did not save specific sources, but I believe that the funerary shield of Edward the Black Prince is one of the main references for an 8lbs shield. I may have read multiple things citing that. I would have found most of my info on the myarmoury forums that Tod mentions regularly.
If blackened simply means pitch, I imagine it probably has more to do with waterproofing to a certain extent. The last thing you'd want is a soaked gambeson that's twice as heavy and gets moldy after a day. For the shield, even when they poke out it's not that big of a deal, if I were holding it the one place I'd worry about is where the arm straps in. Maybe do a look at Matt Easton's video about 15th century boss griped shields. They may have started to use those because of this exactly, holding the shield out for missile fire, then strapping it close for melee so it doesn't get wrenched away from you. Who knows?
@@tods_workshop ...which makes me wonder: if the gamberson is wet, does it affect its resistance to weapons? I'd assume it might reduce it's ability to dissipate energy through moving but I might be completely wrong as well.
I could see this shield recipe being particularly useful for a crossbowman with one of those large Pavis style shields. Particularly in a pinch when you don't have time to set up, so you just turn your back to the enemy walls/formation while your reloading.
I like it for them, too. Genoan crossbowmen (at times) had a dedicated pavesarii for two or three crossbowmen, so the weight would be manageable on the field and would travel with the baggage train. Keeping in mind those shields weren't commonly mounted, but held up, reducing penetration would be vital.
@@tods_workshop The interesting thing about Pavise is that in the area of Czech, Southern /Central Germany and Poland they got extremely popular around the Hussite Wars and came in all shapes and sizes. One reason seems to be the difference in construction as the center plank overlaps the ones on the side. One aspect seems to be that it may be simply more cost effective and easier in construction, but also that it may be sturdier because the planks are braced against each other instead side by side. Also the preferred fighting style of most town militias was to fight from field fortifications (the Hussites proving that technique with their mobile forts of war wagons) and in shield walls formed with Pavises with lots and lots of missile weapons sniping from this position. In essence turning a battle into a siege war. Would be interesting if different types of shields show some different behavior as well, small Pavise variants were even in some parts favored by men at arms and knights.
Hey Tod, I've been loving this series! A (perhaps idle) thought I had was if the plane of the shield might make a difference when comparing these formulae. I would have to guess that someone using a shield would not necessarily present it so that arrows are striking it head-on, but would likely hold it at an angle. This could have 2 effects, first, just like armor, hits would be more likely to skate off without much damage at all, but second, and more relevant to this experiment, the friction of the iron and glass mixture might matter significantly more when an arrow has to travel further at a diagonal through the shield compared to the shortest possible distance head-on.
Wouldn't angling the shield mean that body was exposed in return? And while a person that is alone may be able to compensate by standing at an angle to the archer, but what about if the shield holder is in a formation?
@@Matt_Alaric A lot depends on how the archers are utilised and where they are. If they're aiming directly at individual targets, relatively close, your approach would be different to if they were launching ranged volleys en masse. Your torso is a much bigger target than your lower legs, so sacrificing some protection down there to improve head, neck and torso protection might be quite realistic. Like soldiers of today, archers would aim for the centre mass, the biggest and easiest target.
Same thought about attack angles to mitigate arrow's penetrating power came to my mind. Even though it would be advantageous to angle your shield against a single archer, that is a very specific scenario. If we assume a combat situation, there are a lot of other factors that may nullify this advantage or make it inapplicable. For example, if you are shot at from several directions you are better off maximizing shielded area. If you are shot at from above, below, or if you have to protect yourself from both melee and ranged fire at the same time, or even protect other more vulnerable targets from being hit by drawing fire onto yourself, these situations call for their specific shield application tactics. In other words, yes you can increase your protection by angling your shield, but leveraging this advantage intentionally is going to be possible in a very small number of very specific situations.
Yes an angle is better, but firstly arrows are flying all over so you will never be able to definitely have it an angle and also the area covered decreases as you angle it, so at 45 degrees where the protection will be much better, the coverage is much worse.....Trade off
I love how he tests everything and if it doesn't work that's okay, also a result. Always great videos and I've learned loads about math, physics and other interesting things I never could get into in school. I try to learn something new each day and Tod, you definitely have helped in that regard many times. Thank you!
There definitely is a difference between the treated sections and the untreated. I am going to revisit my 100lb Shield test as well now that I have a Ballistic Torso and and am also going to put a light gambeson on it to see when the arrows do penetrate, (like they do in yours and my tests )if they carry enough energy to then also penetrate the gambeson underneath. I think Shields and Gambeson historically was a common combo so we have to remember that while these arrows are sticking out the back, the shield forms the first layer of an overall "composite". I know my tests are with a 100lb bow (80-90j tested on a Chrono with Will Sherman Arrows) so a bit lighter than your simulators but still a very applicable battle weight for the period. Thanks for this test, Tod. Love your work.
Important point. He mentioned in the beginning ( 2:10 ) that it was supposed to be against edged weapons and not specifically against arrows. Glass glued to leather is basically sandpaper. A sword can cut through the outer layer of leather into the "sandpaper" without being deflected like a metal reinforcement would.
i could also imagine, if the iron and glass pieces were not too fine, that a blade pushing against those might simply increase the area where the force is exerted on, instead of a thin line, it will be a thin line with some smaller chunks added. that might help to mitigate cutting into the wood, since the blade wont really cut small pieces of metal/glass, but rather push them into the wood, and thus loosing energy in the strike due to it being dissipated more. However, that would probably need metal/glass pieces in the size of roughly 0.5-1mm radius..
Tod struggling to get an arrow out of the target in the intro had me giggling. Of course, for every arrow going in, you need to remove one, but we rarely think aout that bit. 😄
exactly. most archers will know the trouble of arrows hitting wood and not getting out easily. even with a modern (carbon fiber) 60lbs bow, if i hit the target's post, the arrows will penetrate maybe 4cm into it and are really hard to get out. Even when working with a knife to break the wood structure and pliers to pull the arrowhead out, it can still be quite a struggle.
This shield is one hell of a super early composite armor. And seeing Tod's analysis on the manufacturing side of things always make it super interesting.
@@walkir2662 Before the 1950s, it was called compound armor in the 1890s. Ironclads were using compound armor of Iron backed with super thick layers of wood. That was replaced by Harvey steel and later Krupp steel on ships. Composite definitely wasn't a idea invented in the 1950s, although modern composite armor in the context of armored fighting vehicles were. Same with combined arms warfare. The general concept had existed since classical periods but only codified and made a part of army core doctrine in the 1920s.
I've only ever made LARP shields. My first was 3/4 inch (19mm) and it was pain in the shoulder and back after less than half an hour. My next was made from an aluminum (aluminium for you crazies over there) saucer sled and it was not much more pleasant. Number three was made from a plastic saucer sled with 3/4 inch (19mm) seat cushion foam on the face covered with deerhide fixed to a thin canvas. That one was a little heavy after a few hours, but it was worth it to alwasy have a comfy pillow. Number four was a joint effort with my brother and made of roughly 6mm thick bullet resistant red-transparent polycarbonate. That was a shoulder breaker, but he loved it because he could see through it. Number five was made with two cross-laminated layers of corrugated plastic "board". It was light, but it buckled the second time I tripped and fell on it. Number six was my last and made of 1/4 inch (6.35mm) pine plywood. It was a DREAM for weight, and the back side was puttied and sanded then painted with chalkboard paint so I always had a notepad on me. - Where were we? Oh yeah. I have great respect for anyone with the skills to make period-accurate shields. I know I would have to put in a lot of failures to get the skills myself.
I love how, even back then, people were keen enough to think about composite materials for protection. It's just goes to show that even though they might have had the same technology, they were still smart enough to puzzle it all out. Awesome video as always!
My first thought is to wonder, how does this perform compared to simply a shield made of thicker planks so that it weighed the same? In other words, are the different materials providing a composite effect, or is it simply that the arrow has more stuff to displace and waste its energy on?
The shield seems the same thickness on each part, so I think the difference in the quantity of material shouldn't be that different. But would a shield composed mostly of glue be better ? Well I'd like to see that test. However the weight wouldn't be the same, it would definitely harder to make and more expensive.
@@marz6770 I think eric here is suggesting to try a 5kg wooden shield to compare against the 5kg composite shield, to see if it's just that it's the 5kg that's making it good, rather than the 2.3kg variant with all the holes in it previously. Obviously the all-wood shield is going to be thicker than the wood+2 layers of leather, but it's possible that the reason the arrows aren't going through is just because it's heavier - which means if you made a wood+leather shield thin enough to get it down to the average 2.5kg, it'd not be any better than just plain wood, which would be interesting in another way. Not to invalidate your suggestion, mind, which is also interesting, but it'd be testing something different.
@@tods_workshop Which, of course - since we know they didn't - begs the fascinating questions - why didn't they do that? What did they know that we don't? And how might we figure it out? I'm on tenterhooks for the next episode, really. ;-]
Thoroughly enjoyable! And not a bad demonstration of how techniques and materials affect outcomes, including when arrows meet shields. Looking forward to the 'edged' episode!
Cool video Tod! For the powdered iron and glass, I'd go with a coarser powder. I suspect its benefit is that the chunks themselves would blunt the arrowheads upon impact, since they would be harder than the steel tip of an arrow.
@@kapytanhook a thin pane of glass would be *hella* expensive back then. crushed glass is probably much cheaper since it'd be either garbage from the glassmakers, or slag from smithing using sand.
@@5peciesunkn0wn The bits of glass left stuck to glassmaking tools after blowing or shaping has occurred accrue carbon slag and all sorts of grit and crud. Makes them useless to most consumers, but the properties of broken glass aren't unduly impacted by that fact either
Really think the crushed glass and iron slag ideas have merit since those would be cheap by products and be closer to a ceramic. Which can be harder then the pure material. The curved shield plus only putting the iron and glass in certain spots has merit. Other question would be would they perhaps go with lighter would to make up for the leather, iron, and glass. Keep up the good work. Really cool
Only through trial and error will we begin eliminating the wrong answers to find the correct ones. Truly fascinating that the amount of stopping power from JUST the fabric to the glued up, hardened fabric was astounding. You're talking about a 50% difference in penetration. That's insane. I never in my wildest dreams, until I found this channel, would have thought that cloth would be so effective against stopping arrows. Truly astounding.
Thank you Tod for all the effort in sketching, building, doing, filming and producing this amazing films. It's a joy to watch really. We transport ourselves into the medieval world and always learn something interesting abot their lives and warfare ways. While watching most TH-cam videos I do it on the go and jumping forward, yours I make time to see and enjoy it. Making myself conformable, with a brew to enjoy the whole way. 😊
Interesting video, the different bands of treatment on the shield is enginious. I bet it would be worth while to have a bit of extra protection such as the leather (or some metal) over the section in contact with arm, rather than the whole shield. Could also be that certain "ranks" would be more likely to use something like this. In essence an officer who might not need the shield for anything but stopping arrows and wouldn't be carrying it at all times may get more use. Always great fun to watch these videos.
Easily one of the best channels to show how awesome science projects/scientific theory could be. (I used your channel as curriculum for my son over the summer). Great channel, love your videos.
Incredible video as always. I love how professional and scientific you get with these. I have a couple of things to add about the leather shield and the blacken gambeson coming from my Gaelic knowledge On the leather shield. I know the that Irish and Scottish would wrap their targe / target shields in leather. This is most famous in 17th and 18th century Scots but they were doing this in the early 16th century as well. One particular shield that the Northern Irish and Western Scots used were wicker shields wrapped in leather. The youtuber Stoccata has made a couple and says they work great. Now I don't know enough about leather to know what thickness was used or how it was treated but I am curious on the test of wicker shields. Though looking at how the Scots used the targe it may have been used at an angle instead of holding it dead on. This would mitigate a lot of the penetration power of the arrows. As of the blacken gambeson I have a source about Scottish warriors wearing gambeson coated in pitch. " John Major (1512), who wrote that the common people among the highlanders rush into battle having for body armour a linen tunic manifoldly sewn and painted or daubed with pitch, and covered with deerskin." In the book World of the Galloglass by Sean Duffy also mentions about coats being coated in wax. It is theories that the pitch and wax was used to make the coats and gambeson water resistant. Coming from a wet climate and being on the water the gambeson would take on moisture and get really heavy. Duffy also mentions about wanting to experiment wax gambeson to see if they are more buoyant.
Just a thought on that black gambeson not working - it may be too hard. Do you know how a bulletresistant vest works? I is a flexible material with high tensile strength. And the flexibility is what makes it work at least for small arms like pistols. The material doesn’t stop the bullet instantly like an armour plate, it flexes and the fibers stretch a small amount. So it slows the projectile down a bit more gradually. The idea with pitch sounds interesting. That may give the fibers in the gambeson a bit more strength while keeping some of the flexibility. It may also “fill the gaps” in a way that a arrowhead has a harder time penetrating through. Won’t likely be perfect, but reducing the penetration just a few centimetres can save a life… Fantastic video again. Thank you, Tod. ❤
The glass and iron filings probably act a lot like kevlar does in a modern ballistic vest. Spreads the impact energy over a slightly larger area and that's enough to prevent good penetration. I would imagine this would be an awesome covering for a pavise. Excellent video, as always!
My guess is that tanned leather would be pretty cheap to make in the period as compared to adding thin metal layer to the shield. Also metal needs to be maintained to prevent it from rusting, so it was time and labor consuming. I think this tanned leather variant could really be something that really was done back in the day. Glass powder however it may be a stretch. In contemporary body armor there is often ceramic involved to break up the bullet, but it really needs to be in a solid form to actually work. In powdered form it is useless. So maybe recipe meant glass chunks rather than glass powder, or powder works but only for stopping the blades. I guess we will see in the next part. cheers
I would like to know if and by how much iron of the period was more expensive than (half-tanned) leather. Iron bucklers did exist in the same time period (14th to 15th century) as heater shields similar to the one in the video. But I wonder if iron shields of similar size were contemporary. Such shields did exist and were at least used in later periods in Western Europe, and I think at least in some cases were proof against bullets.
Ok, so my impression from these tests is that the leather with the iron and glass filings does make quite a significant difference, but it also suggests to me that the choice to return to bosses and center gripped shields in the coming centuries, as shown by Matt Easton, might originate here: with the improvement of ranged weapons and their power
8:50 I can imagine it being a case where a in a long battle or siege, troops rotating out of the front could take their shield and remove their arrows and then they'd be fired back (likely collected by someone else and distributed to archers), but definitely not a quick yank it out and the archer shoots it right after. Though if the stocks of your own arrows weren't low, the recovered arrows would probably be stocked for later.
i find your knowledge to be really amazing about a really cool subject that never seems to get the deep dive. i really like that you test and have data to backup your claims, and for that i thank you
how much would the weight difference be between full red, full orange and full yellow? It could be that the most extra weight is the red part. I would be fairly happy with a full orange shield over yellow. The penetration difference is quite significant between those two. BTW, the Zulu found out that having wet lether shields helps to stop the British musket fire. Will a wet lether shield perform better versus an arrow too?
red and orange are basically the same weight (the metal and glass powder might be in the realms of 30g or 50g at max, i'd think) , and the 5.2kg and 2.3kg he mentioned referred to full red and full yellow respectively
"Heavy shield day". I love that. I'm now imagining a knight getting with a foul mood and thinking, "today feels like a heavy shield day." Your point about the added weight being a significant downside is a good one. It would be interesting to know what the weight would be if it was all like the orange area, maybe that's the sweet spot between weight and protection. If it's say around 3.5-4 kilos, I can easily imagine a knight who is, let's say "bulkier" asking for a shield made like that.
Tod, these are amazing. This is some great analysis of the technologies and how they actually worked in a practical way. This is priceless info. Thank you.
Several years ago Thegn Thrand(another TH-camr) made a shield of just 6mm pine, with rawhide over the front & back. The pine was mostly just a skeleton to hold the rawhide. But the results when tested were amazing. Incredible resistance to arrows & blades. So maybe rawhide is the thing to try rather than leather. It also makes a very light & weildly shield.
If Todd is using half tanned leather then it basically has a core of rawhide with only the outer layers tanned into leather. If he is shooting fully tanned leather then it would be all leather.
This is the first I've seen of the series. I'll have to go back to see the others. I really appreciate your thoroughness and candour in your experiments. Always time well spent .
The weight is about equal to an FN minimi. Considering all the other crap we carried at the same time, this shield construction seems entirely ok from a user perspective (imho)
@@feryth and a fair few of the people holding it in one arm were either raised from a young age to do it or worked very labour intensive jobs, there's documentation of people being Knighted on campaign at the age of 16, meaning they were fighting before then and training a long time before that, or were lucky.
But you aren't swinging your minimi, no? Shield is relatively fix if you are trying to stop projectile fire. But in melee, shield is a very dynamic thing that's moves around a lot.
Tod, thanks for your videos! The amount of work standing behind them is really amazing. Especially as a former HMB fighter, I absolutely love what you (and the other guys on this channel) do here :)
My first thought on the gluehardened gambeson was „yeeeaaah even if you manage to wear it half way comfortable, it seems to be more „brittle“ than the regular one but i could not imagine it gaining enough hardness to defeat an arrow“. So i am not surprised by the results, and even less as i think about mankind, trying to defeat kinetik energy always results in some kind of ductile materials mainly (steel, kevlar, sandbags, polymer in securityglass, …) Another thing that came to my mind is: The additional leather on that shield will certainly not have the same arrow stopping ratio without the wood. I even think you can get rid of the leather on the backside and the difference is unmeasureble. Due to my hobby i shot and pulled out countless arrows in and out of many materials. My guess is, the front layer of leather gets cut by the arrowhead and pulled into the wood along the passing shaft. Could be, the leather works as a kind of glue/seal, improving the friction between shield and arrow. To back that up, it could be tested with: no leather on the back, loose leather on front, ridicilous thick leather and hardened(?) leather.
13:18 Well, as Matt Easton showed in a recent video, if a man at arms did elect to carry a shield, he was probably using a very toned down armor config for their shield arm, as Matt found it was basically unusable with a full arm harness. He theorized they might have been using boss held for those who wanted to use a full arm harness with a heater shield, but especially with the weight that these treated shield have, I don't buy it, the arm strap just makes more sense for carrying this much weight. Combining what I've seen between these two videos, my theory now is that bosses re-emerged on shields from this era as a deflecting surface to protect the part of the shield where the arm was on the other side, so that if an arrow hit that portion of the shield, the arrow would glance right off, not allowing for the arrow to make purchase into the shield at all, or if it did, with much reduced energy. It makes sense since it's being incredibly economical with the steel, minimizing weight and maximizing protection to a key area, rather than facing the whole shield in steel which would be heavy and expensive. Plus it looks like shields of the old days, and certainly in Italy, nostalgia was all the rage in the 14-1500s. That might be worth testing in a Part 4, making a boss for the front of this shield and trying to hit it, and seeing what it does, and if it stops arrows from hitting the strap area and piercing the arm.
The opening shot of the shield getting hit by multiple arrows in quick succession gave me strong "Hawk the Slayer" repeating crossbow vibes. Chunk! Chunk! Chunk! Another fun and informative bit of experimental archaeology.
I just wanted to say that I love the Bowie knife that I got from you! It is a very useful knife, very comfortable in the hand and well balanced and has a good edge. Thanks very much!
My experience with paper mache and composite layup is the adhesive needs to be applied to each layer, enough to properly wet but not a excess. A roller, squeegee (or vacuum bag) to squeeze out extra adhesive helps. Applying glue to soak into an already assembled quilt would not be the preferred method. Especially with components that won't easily squeeze through the fabric. I've heard of armor made of lacquered silk in the far east. Glued linen seems an obvious western analog if the method were known.
...and when you are wrong, you openly say it, because that is a result of your testing, too. 👍👍👍.... I love seeing that. Not trying to prove any particular point, just to get wiser. Keep up the good work 👍💪👍
Excellent video Tod! At that range for a target that size, your aim is to be commended! This is the kind of experimental work that we just don't see anywhere else.
Heres an interesting test, its not historical but apparently kitchen tiles can be used to create sacrificial one time bullet proof armour. I would love to see a bolt against that. Cheers J
Remember the added weight may only be needed in certain areas like the top line down passed the arm straps. That could be a patch put on the wood then over wrapped with regular painted cloth. .. You're on the right track, there are some prepper channels using river rock or ceramic tiles, cookie sheets, and epoxy with fiberglass to make firearm protection.
Wrapping the edge where blades were likely to bite and protecting the area that the arm was closely wrapped in the shield would make the most sense. The idea of targetting areas of the shield for extra protection makes total sense. Then of course there might be areas needing counterweighting or extra protection even where not needed for reasons of balance.
Hello Tod, I enjoy watching your workshops. If you ever run out of ideas, you can try shields and armor against wizard powers: lightning, fireballs, icebolts and the most deadly spell against every heavily armored knight, quicksands. Weren't those times full of magic? In any case, a good idea to attract an easily bored audience. But you can still check how an ambush in the forest with cutting down trees on a column of soldiers works. Or whether medieval tanks protected against any weapons, I meant Hussite wagons. Or spikes in a covered hole in the ground like pinji traps in Vietnam. Or a collapsed bridge over a river while marching, or in full armor it was difficult not to drown.
you mentioned that a thin layer of steel might do as well or better. I think that the point is that it is quite easy to glue some glass and iron shavings into your shield cover than it is to forge (and buy) a metal sheet.
Metal shields are a 1500's item and far stronger for less weight but by then there trying to make them bullet proof. And they had some success for a few decades.
An outer blackened layer might help with weather proofing, to especially if it uses pitch. Also a single harder layer can help deflect a bit of energy before the softer cloth inners catch the arrow.
Todd, great work as usual .The exciting news about the Roman Spathi, Gladius and Pilum found in a dead Sea Cave this week is really amazing.I would like to go to Jerusalem to study them (metal,construction methods etc ) . You should look at that as well.
Tod, this was still a successful test of the black gambeson. The result was negative of course, but the test was successfully executed with solid trustworthy result.
Okay, now follow me on this one. How about, instead of iron filings and glass, you made the outer layers of leather, then a few layers of something readily available in the middle like horse hair. Not just globbed on, but slather the inner layer with glue or pitch and lay on a layer of horse hair or jute running horizontally. Then another layer of glue followed by another layer of hair going vertically. And so on. I think this would essentially be a medieval version of something like carbon fiber or micarta. But I think that a layering of adhesive and fiber between layers of hardened leather would work well and be relatively light. Not sure if anyone would have thought of this back in the day, but I think that you, Tod, could put it to the test with both aplomb and the Lockdown Longbow. Thanks for the content, it's amazing as always!
The blackened gambeson results don't surprise me. Aldrete et. al's test showed that glued linen was less effective than quilted linen for a given level of thickness. Of course, they tried to spin it as glue being more effective because you need fewer layers...ignoring that their thick layers of "authentic" linen probably actually weighed more overall compared to their thinner modern linen which, again, offered the same or better protection for a given thickness. Re: the King's Mirror, there's no mention of pitch in there. That's modern suspicion, not original text. As always, I think the Lübeck jack's lampblack and boiled linseed treatment is the blackening the King's Mirror suggests. That makes it waterproof and much harder wearing. I also think, as I've said before, that the "shield" in the text is a wooden former, not an actual shield, and this recipe was for hardened leather armour rather than a shield covering.
It most probably is a recipe for armour, considering that there is a text written in Arabic from the 12th century concerning the manufacture of a similar leather composite armour.
11:50 hard to get across on a post. the leather would likely cause a friction as it is soft. The dissipation of energy would reduce as the leather flexes in then tears. There would be some effect to the arrow. Where once the wood Fibre or rigid material has been punched though have broken then the friction would be minimal as end grain usually. Soft wood or flax etc may jact more like leather. . wood end grain would act like a brush where the leather would sort of want to grip and go with it. Be interesting to see a super slo motion and capture speed at difference times of penetrations…. Slo mo guys collab…
I worked with insulation for many years and a common way of making some materials tougher was to get the bitumen to its boiling point for some time to make it harder then apply a very thin coat to the surface and while it was still hot apply a cloth, roll the cloth into the bitumen then when it was smooth allow it to cool before applying a second thicker coat of bitumen. I guess the same could be done with leather. We also used asphalt which is bitumen mixed with clay and this was even harder, like a cross between rubber and glass.
Still interested on what layers of wool or fibre would do, like in a Targe. That and the studs made them pistol proof to a certain extend (video test on youtube).
I don't think the arrows poking through matters at all, or means the shield failed. The shield isn't there to reflect arrows and look pretty at the end of the battle, it's to keep the wearer alive. Except for the arm strap, the shield isn't going to be flushed against the body. So a few inches of penetration doesn't matter - anything less than 20cm+ is probably annoying as it off balances the shield, but nothing more. At the arm strap it does matter, but there's extra padding there, plus the wearer is presumably going to have at least mail armour, so the arrows poking through doesn't matter either.
Seeing the results of various tests involving shields and arrows, one may wonder, why would anyone use a shield strapped to his arm instead of holding it away from his body.
@@henriknemeth3370 Just because it's strapped to the arm, doesn't mean the arm is held tight against the body. There's the whole length from shoulder to elbow to hold it away. That's more than enough distance.
I think here we are seeing rather more the effect of composite materials being greater than the sum of their parts than the added leather and glue in its own right doing the extra work. I expect the benefits are rather more because the glue and leather being a bit elastic helps the wood resist splitting down the grain and wants to close that tear up. With the glass and iron probably helping only a little mostly by providing a harder material to blunt the tip and more mass for the arrow to move, though it may also help the glue lock the layers together and spread the impact over more of the leather. So I expect you could probably go very very thin leather and glue layer(s) and still get much, perhaps even all of the benefit shown here. I may be horribly wrong on that, so testing would be required of course. If you want to go further Tod might I suggest doing a similar shield construction with much thinner leather, and perhaps just a layer of glue to attach a layer of the iron filing and glass on their own, along with a shield constructed of much thinner wood so the leather and glass layers as you just demonstrated will then bring this new shield back up to that more weldable weight. That would give us a better idea of how much it is the extra mass, the materials, and the compositing of them.
Very interesting results and video as always. Makes one think that it might have been a medieval-era armchair expert "reinventing" the shield perhaps. On a separate thread: It would be really interesting to see how a shield would stand up against arrows that hits it from an angle. How big of a difference it makes etc. Thanks for your work :)
Keep in mind that the heavier shield includes glass and iron filings in the red section, that could be a fair bit of weight. Also no leather in the yellow section. But a 5kg shield that protects a lot better, seems reasonable. Romans used a 10kg shield I believe.
I love the sound of those arrows moving past the camera. I wonder how much of that is the feathers vs the shaft. If it is the feathers I wonder it it would change the sound with owl feathers
Dear Tod, I have literally just signed up to youtube, for tge sole purpose of making this comment. About blackened gambesons, the King's Mirror (Konungs Skuggsja) specifically states that the fabric is soft, as that same cloth that is used for the gambeson, is also used for the warriors underwear. Furthermore, it also specifies that this kind of armour is the best type, when fighting on ships. I therefore find it highly unlikely that blackened gambesons would be hardened with tar or pitch. Personally, I believe iron dye to be more likely. With regards- A history student, currently writing about medieval Danish armour. PS: Subscribed.
Very informative video again. So...a thin layer of metal?...on the front towards the attacker, or on the back?...on the front more deflections that could be good and bad. on the back so that the arrow has been slowed down, less penetration and less deflecting. or of course in the middle of a wood sandwich, that allows for easy attachment of the wood...
You should definitely try making "custom" arrowheads. Something that you think might be better at armor penetration for example. We don't have ALL the arrowheads from the medieval period and they were experimenting too. I'd really love to see what you come up with the "perfect" arrowhead them might have used. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Tod. A very interesting video. I am not an expert but hose extra layers might be useful on a pavise for crossbow or bow armed people to hide behind.
Today as always love it. The shirt is amazing. You should try swing the sheild around I wonder if leather glass mix on the back instead of the front would make a difference?
Wondering about the glass and rather than a fine power if it was larger pieces it might have the potential to behave like some of the ceramic armor plates that exist. Definitely also for arrows only looks like a good idea to just have it localised around the arm if you wanted to keep the weight down.
1:20 how far out the back? Better still how far if i add a padded cloth(gambeson) or wooden layer? you have only added to the outside in a uniform wrap? i would like to see a pen test on a shield with backing made to absorb the stab beyond a small patch over the arm it seems like that tiny bit of leather did alot and layers add alot... are you intentionally using elasticity in the mountings to absorb impact??? pentation would be alot deeper with stiffer mounts unless the bolts got drastically thicker beyond the stopping point.
Curious if you could make a shield that has the material under the red zone only in the area where the arm would be placed and light material (yellow) for the rest. Be the ideal mix of protection and lightness. Great videos!
with armor and padding that needle bodkin would leave at most a slight stinging flesh-wound but not impact your ability to fight whilst the yellow needle bodkin would literally nail your arm to the shield and maybe put both out of action. Tho the single point of contact at the bottom suspending the shield allows it to pivot slightly left and right on impact dispersing the kinetic force so it should perhaps penetrate more in the yellow zone than it does.
The problem with glue infused gambeson is that it's too stiff to work as a soft armor. That could also be the reason why arrows went deeper on the glued gambeson - it did worse at dispersing the force of the impact. That, and hide glue is not very water resistant. Shields and scabbards were covered with gesso for that reason, otherwise if they were exposed to moisture for a length of time (and we're talking mostly in the context of longbows and British Isles warfare, there's a LOT of moisture on a war campaign) they would soon start to rot, which I think might be the main reason why they opted for quivers to be made just of tanned leather, or other more water resistant materials (early medieval birch bark quiver findings come to mind).
About the only thought I have is for the blackened gambeson. Instead of soaking the whole thing just the outer layer. That should help with crushing blows. It won't do anything for arrows, swords, and axes, but it might help. Like with armor that has a layer that is brittle and a layer that is ductile.
I would love if you test the pitched blackened gambeson. But use the pitch as they use it when pitching a pitcher. That is melt the resin on slow fire until it starts bubbling, so all the turpentine and volatiles left. If you let it cool it will result a shiny glass/plastic like surface that is not sticky. Usually pretty nice yellow or amber color. It is hard and brittle. Basically you made rosin. If brittleness is an issue you can temper it with charcoal and a little bit of fat. That also makes it black and more plastic like. Then make a few layer of pitched canvas over regular gambeson. Honestly I think they would have made such thing just to make it shiny and waterproof. Rosin was a common product since ancient times with many use cases from waterproofing pots and barrels, as glue or to use it as medicine.
Pleasure to watch as always. re why they might have used it - it might have been cheaper / easier to make from local materials? Leather was easy to come by (compared to steel), so was wood. So I'd imagine that some of the lesser lords from remote / poor areas might prefer to use shields like this for their men at arms.
It seems like that extra layers of leather or leather with glass and iron could be worthwhile over where you arm rests, and then without leather everywhere else so it doesn't get super heavy.
This would be like a metal bose in essence but leather based instead of fabric.
Not sure about historical accuracy though.
I suspect if you had chainmail on the arm area the regular shield might cover it.
So in essence this could be a poorer man's arm protection.
The glass and iron coating was ment for stationary pavise shields
This is an interesting thought. Though armor on the arm would both be easier to carry and likely do the same or better job for the same or less weight.
@@ardemus
And this is an entirely logical reason very solid front arm bracers exist.
@@JanoTuotanto On the one hand a stationary shield. On the other, a much larger shield, and used where an arrow sticking through 20cm is less a problem.
Tod is getting noticeably better with his crossbow aim.... like getting scary good accurate...
Yeah i don't want him shooting needle bodkins at me, they're frigging terrifying
What is the range? 25-30 meters?
Yeah he should stick to crossbowing than spear throwing or throwing in general
But he certainly didn't do himself any favors by making the different bands so unevenly spaced. If would have tried to make each band as close to the same size as each other as possible to make hitting each band a bit easier.
"scary good accurate"
alright calm down
5:50 WHat you have to remember also is that in this test every hit is a complete worst-case scenario; perfect aim, perfect angle, and still it only gets through that little. Also: even if that arrow does manage to wound you, it's a scrape on your arm whereas with a lesser shield it might be arm-shattering damage.
It's a bit like complaining that your car's seatbelt is too tight: the alternative is to fly through the windshield. Take your pick.
th-cam.com/video/VvIzvUYdeKY/w-d-xo.html
Excellent comment! Much to often we take tests that are being performed under "perfect storm" conditions and stamp them (beyond any doubt) as a standard occurrence in a battlefield scenario. Again, great comment! Cheers!
very good point
These are also at relatively close range and without any angle, like you might be getting if somebody is shooting down a wall at you, in battle, or what not. If you're at these ranges against archers, those archers are going to be shitting bricks.
Agreed - this is in the worst state for the shield, but then we can know what it does in the worst case. Of course if you angle it etc, it will always be better
I wasn't done laughing at "greased shafts penetrate better" and Tod already hit me with "8 inches through the back, you might wanna stop that" 😂
😂😂😂
“Ungreased, unwaxed, little bit dirty…”
tira,, fuerte,,esa,, bayesta
My grandfather taught me to mix black sand with heated pitch and to use that as a binder for the boiled leather to the planks. He said it was how Northmen made arrow proof shields. He would also sprinkle crushed coal powder on his anvil when forging so maybe he was just nuts. 😂
He may have wanted the coal powder for the added carbon?
@@brianj.841 Coal is like one of the easiest ways to source nearly pure carbon at that time, really
You need huge amount of coal to get some carbon content in iron, little bit of powder would do nothing
Perhaps to counterbalance the amount of carbon that gets lost on the surface through oxidation? @@mosadcoow
You can use coal powder when drifting holes while forging. If you try to punch a hole into a solid piece of steel, what happens quite often is that your punch might get stuck. To prevent that you can use a lubricant. There are dozens of modern ones, an old one is simply charcoal that has been crushed. You put the coal into the hole that you are punching and because of the heat it will start to ignite and create a gas. If you now add the punch on top of that and hit the whole thing with a hammer you will seal of a tiny pocket in which the gas is being compressed, it pushes against the punch and therefore prevents it from getting stuck. Learned that in blacksmithing school, works like a charm :) Maybe that 's what he did?
Very interesting tests! Normally I consider extra weight quite a hindrance in combat, but for that type of shield it's less of a problem. Large center-grip shields like the scutum could easily weigh twice as much as the reinforced heater shield you made (granted, for more protection). A strapped shield is easier to hold, especially with a guige strap. So it might be worth the extra protection.
Then again like you said, with armor the arm underneath might be safe even in case of the lighter version.
sorry but have you ever held a shield for more than an hour? battles do tend to wear you down in many other ways and i think there is a good reason why weight has always been a major concern for shields and armour. even without considering the hindrance in combat that you already mentioned
@@jacqirius Oh, I know. Just saying there were heavier shield types, so clearly sometimes the added protection was seen as worth the exertion.
yoo skall
@Skallagrim Are you allowed to associate with Tod, considering your questionable political stances on certain things in the past? I know Matt Easton is purging the impure, I was wondering if this was true of everyone in the sword community.
@@kdolo1887 wtf u talkin bout?
Tod, what if you cover just a small portion of the shield with armor. For example you could cover the narrow arm band in the center with the armor, to better protect your arm, and the upper left corner, to better protect your face and so the arrows don't get in the way when trying to maneuver the shield into a position in front of your face.
You could reduce the excess weight of the shield while still retaining the increased pen resistance in the places you would need it the most: The places where the shield is in close proximity to your body.
There is also the option of the double layer of leather as you describe and a single layer over the rest of the sheild.
So this begs the question, why not put an iron sheet under the shield where the wrist is?
The answer is probably the expense but.... I think I would be happy paying a bit more.
@@papalaz4444244I would imagine leather was very much cheaper than iron or steel so if it preformed the same at iron why not use the cheaper material. I may be off base and I’m sure there are places and times where metal was cheaper or a comparable price to leather
@@nickbob2003 By the English civil war metal armour was cheaper then buff coats.
But people went for the nice, warm, flexible and not really armour buff coats over the hard metal armour.
@@papalaz4444244 You would want the metal sheet on the outer side of the shield to make use of its deflective properties. If it were placed between shield and arm padding, it's little more than an extra layer and you might as well just go with cheaper options. And indeed this is something that was done. Round shields typically had shield bosses, and kite shields often did, too.
I'm not sure how common this was for heater shields, but I would also assume the answer to this is probably expense. If you were willing to spend more on a shield, you would likely pick a larger kite shield over a smaller heater with a boss. I would think a larger surface area is a better justification for the extra weight.
I've seen several sources that indicate the weight of a heater shield as around 8 lbs. That seems like about the weight you might get with the half tanned leather and no glass or iron. That seems like a good compromise between weight and extra protection.
Could we get some specific's on where you have seen these.
Aren't greek, roman and celt shields even heavier?
@@markcorrigan3930 I've seen scutum (Roman heavy shields) being listed at as much as 20 lbs, but I am not sure about Greek and Celtic. Bear in mind those were often larger overall (compared to heater shields), though.
@@gmanbo TH-cam appears to have eaten my reply. I did not save specific sources, but I believe that the funerary shield of Edward the Black Prince is one of the main references for an 8lbs shield. I may have read multiple things citing that. I would have found most of my info on the myarmoury forums that Tod mentions regularly.
@@grbdevnull5611 it's fine TH-cam deletes any comments with links
If blackened simply means pitch, I imagine it probably has more to do with waterproofing to a certain extent. The last thing you'd want is a soaked gambeson that's twice as heavy and gets moldy after a day. For the shield, even when they poke out it's not that big of a deal, if I were holding it the one place I'd worry about is where the arm straps in. Maybe do a look at Matt Easton's video about 15th century boss griped shields. They may have started to use those because of this exactly, holding the shield out for missile fire, then strapping it close for melee so it doesn't get wrenched away from you. Who knows?
Hadn't even thought of that, but it makes sense. Basically turns your gambeson into a oil-canvas raincoat.
The manuscripts do seem to imply that it is about better protection
@@tods_workshop ...which makes me wonder: if the gamberson is wet, does it affect its resistance to weapons?
I'd assume it might reduce it's ability to dissipate energy through moving but I might be completely wrong as well.
I could see this shield recipe being particularly useful for a crossbowman with one of those large Pavis style shields. Particularly in a pinch when you don't have time to set up, so you just turn your back to the enemy walls/formation while your reloading.
I like it for them, too. Genoan crossbowmen (at times) had a dedicated pavesarii for two or three crossbowmen, so the weight would be manageable on the field and would travel with the baggage train. Keeping in mind those shields weren't commonly mounted, but held up, reducing penetration would be vital.
Yes it would, but also they were thicker anyway and the plain wood is probably, but not definitely lighter
@@tods_workshop The interesting thing about Pavise is that in the area of Czech, Southern /Central Germany and Poland they got extremely popular around the Hussite Wars and came in all shapes and sizes. One reason seems to be the difference in construction as the center plank overlaps the ones on the side. One aspect seems to be that it may be simply more cost effective and easier in construction, but also that it may be sturdier because the planks are braced against each other instead side by side.
Also the preferred fighting style of most town militias was to fight from field fortifications (the Hussites proving that technique with their mobile forts of war wagons) and in shield walls formed with Pavises with lots and lots of missile weapons sniping from this position. In essence turning a battle into a siege war.
Would be interesting if different types of shields show some different behavior as well, small Pavise variants were even in some parts favored by men at arms and knights.
Hey Tod, I've been loving this series! A (perhaps idle) thought I had was if the plane of the shield might make a difference when comparing these formulae. I would have to guess that someone using a shield would not necessarily present it so that arrows are striking it head-on, but would likely hold it at an angle. This could have 2 effects, first, just like armor, hits would be more likely to skate off without much damage at all, but second, and more relevant to this experiment, the friction of the iron and glass mixture might matter significantly more when an arrow has to travel further at a diagonal through the shield compared to the shortest possible distance head-on.
Wouldn't angling the shield mean that body was exposed in return? And while a person that is alone may be able to compensate by standing at an angle to the archer, but what about if the shield holder is in a formation?
I have to disagree. Angling a shield just gives you less coverage behind the shield and makes you an easier target for the archer.
@@Matt_Alaric A lot depends on how the archers are utilised and where they are. If they're aiming directly at individual targets, relatively close, your approach would be different to if they were launching ranged volleys en masse. Your torso is a much bigger target than your lower legs, so sacrificing some protection down there to improve head, neck and torso protection might be quite realistic. Like soldiers of today, archers would aim for the centre mass, the biggest and easiest target.
Same thought about attack angles to mitigate arrow's penetrating power came to my mind. Even though it would be advantageous to angle your shield against a single archer, that is a very specific scenario. If we assume a combat situation, there are a lot of other factors that may nullify this advantage or make it inapplicable. For example, if you are shot at from several directions you are better off maximizing shielded area. If you are shot at from above, below, or if you have to protect yourself from both melee and ranged fire at the same time, or even protect other more vulnerable targets from being hit by drawing fire onto yourself, these situations call for their specific shield application tactics.
In other words, yes you can increase your protection by angling your shield, but leveraging this advantage intentionally is going to be possible in a very small number of very specific situations.
Yes an angle is better, but firstly arrows are flying all over so you will never be able to definitely have it an angle and also the area covered decreases as you angle it, so at 45 degrees where the protection will be much better, the coverage is much worse.....Trade off
I love how he tests everything and if it doesn't work that's okay, also a result. Always great videos and I've learned loads about math, physics and other interesting things I never could get into in school. I try to learn something new each day and Tod, you definitely have helped in that regard many times. Thank you!
One of the helpfull things for me as a kid were comics like Asterix, they are not always as accurate but did learn a fair few things from it.
I liked them too
There definitely is a difference between the treated sections and the untreated.
I am going to revisit my 100lb Shield test as well now that I have a Ballistic Torso and and am also going to put a light gambeson on it to see when the arrows do penetrate, (like they do in yours and my tests )if they carry enough energy to then also penetrate the gambeson underneath.
I think Shields and Gambeson historically was a common combo so we have to remember that while these arrows are sticking out the back, the shield forms the first layer of an overall "composite".
I know my tests are with a 100lb bow (80-90j tested on a Chrono with Will Sherman Arrows) so a bit lighter than your simulators but still a very applicable battle weight for the period.
Thanks for this test, Tod. Love your work.
Keep us posted
@@tods_workshop will do :)
@@tods_workshop th-cam.com/video/omBmvfA03xM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oPp7az9vOy2kfdDe test completed. Very interesting results.
I suspect the glass and iron fillings are more about dulling blades than slowing arrows, looking forward to the blades against that shield video.
Important point. He mentioned in the beginning ( 2:10 ) that it was supposed to be against edged weapons and not specifically against arrows. Glass glued to leather is basically sandpaper. A sword can cut through the outer layer of leather into the "sandpaper" without being deflected like a metal reinforcement would.
As I understand "sword and board" combat, the sword blow would more often be taken to the edge of the shield.
But the only original with such a hard layer I know of is a small mantlet. (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, W 1)
i could also imagine, if the iron and glass pieces were not too fine, that a blade pushing against those might simply increase the area where the force is exerted on, instead of a thin line, it will be a thin line with some smaller chunks added. that might help to mitigate cutting into the wood, since the blade wont really cut small pieces of metal/glass, but rather push them into the wood, and thus loosing energy in the strike due to it being dissipated more. However, that would probably need metal/glass pieces in the size of roughly 0.5-1mm radius..
Tod struggling to get an arrow out of the target in the intro had me giggling. Of course, for every arrow going in, you need to remove one, but we rarely think aout that bit. 😄
exactly. most archers will know the trouble of arrows hitting wood and not getting out easily. even with a modern (carbon fiber) 60lbs bow, if i hit the target's post, the arrows will penetrate maybe 4cm into it and are really hard to get out. Even when working with a knife to break the wood structure and pliers to pull the arrowhead out, it can still be quite a struggle.
This shield is one hell of a super early composite armor. And seeing Tod's analysis on the manufacturing side of things always make it super interesting.
I'd be astonished if the concept of composite armor wasn't known in the Classical period. (No, wikipedia, it was invented before 1950s tank armor...)
@@walkir2662 Probably even the bronze age. Someone must have noticed that soft padding behind metal plates was a good thing...
@@walkir2662 Before the 1950s, it was called compound armor in the 1890s. Ironclads were using compound armor of Iron backed with super thick layers of wood. That was replaced by Harvey steel and later Krupp steel on ships. Composite definitely wasn't a idea invented in the 1950s, although modern composite armor in the context of armored fighting vehicles were.
Same with combined arms warfare. The general concept had existed since classical periods but only codified and made a part of army core doctrine in the 1920s.
I've made myself a roundshield once, with a few metal reinforcements. It weighs ~4,5kg and that thing is HEAVY on the arm.
What kind of wood did you use?
@@Specter_1125 12mm plywood, beech I think, my next one will be made of poplar (I might confuse the woods, some German names can be a bit different)
I've only ever made LARP shields.
My first was 3/4 inch (19mm) and it was pain in the shoulder and back after less than half an hour.
My next was made from an aluminum (aluminium for you crazies over there) saucer sled and it was not much more pleasant.
Number three was made from a plastic saucer sled with 3/4 inch (19mm) seat cushion foam on the face covered with deerhide fixed to a thin canvas. That one was a little heavy after a few hours, but it was worth it to alwasy have a comfy pillow.
Number four was a joint effort with my brother and made of roughly 6mm thick bullet resistant red-transparent polycarbonate. That was a shoulder breaker, but he loved it because he could see through it.
Number five was made with two cross-laminated layers of corrugated plastic "board". It was light, but it buckled the second time I tripped and fell on it.
Number six was my last and made of 1/4 inch (6.35mm) pine plywood. It was a DREAM for weight, and the back side was puttied and sanded then painted with chalkboard paint so I always had a notepad on me.
-
Where were we?
Oh yeah. I have great respect for anyone with the skills to make period-accurate shields. I know I would have to put in a lot of failures to get the skills myself.
I love how, even back then, people were keen enough to think about composite materials for protection. It's just goes to show that even though they might have had the same technology, they were still smart enough to puzzle it all out. Awesome video as always!
Again, here you are making great videos, Tod !!!!
My first thought is to wonder, how does this perform compared to simply a shield made of thicker planks so that it weighed the same? In other words, are the different materials providing a composite effect, or is it simply that the arrow has more stuff to displace and waste its energy on?
The shield seems the same thickness on each part, so I think the difference in the quantity of material shouldn't be that different.
But would a shield composed mostly of glue be better ? Well I'd like to see that test. However the weight wouldn't be the same, it would definitely harder to make and more expensive.
@@marz6770 I think eric here is suggesting to try a 5kg wooden shield to compare against the 5kg composite shield, to see if it's just that it's the 5kg that's making it good, rather than the 2.3kg variant with all the holes in it previously. Obviously the all-wood shield is going to be thicker than the wood+2 layers of leather, but it's possible that the reason the arrows aren't going through is just because it's heavier - which means if you made a wood+leather shield thin enough to get it down to the average 2.5kg, it'd not be any better than just plain wood, which would be interesting in another way.
Not to invalidate your suggestion, mind, which is also interesting, but it'd be testing something different.
@@llearch No no you're right that's another way to look at it that is simpler.
I just assumed the weight of the composite shield was mostly wood.
Twice the thickness would be less than the weight of this and probably just fine for protection
@@tods_workshop Which, of course - since we know they didn't - begs the fascinating questions - why didn't they do that? What did they know that we don't? And how might we figure it out? I'm on tenterhooks for the next episode, really. ;-]
Thoroughly enjoyable! And not a bad demonstration of how techniques and materials affect outcomes, including when arrows meet shields. Looking forward to the 'edged' episode!
Cool video Tod! For the powdered iron and glass, I'd go with a coarser powder. I suspect its benefit is that the chunks themselves would blunt the arrowheads upon impact, since they would be harder than the steel tip of an arrow.
Or even just a pane of thin glass. Ye olde ceramic composite armor xD
@@kapytanhook a thin pane of glass would be *hella* expensive back then. crushed glass is probably much cheaper since it'd be either garbage from the glassmakers, or slag from smithing using sand.
@@5peciesunkn0wn The bits of glass left stuck to glassmaking tools after blowing or shaping has occurred accrue carbon slag and all sorts of grit and crud. Makes them useless to most consumers, but the properties of broken glass aren't unduly impacted by that fact either
@@tylerphuoc2653 Thanks!
Really think the crushed glass and iron slag ideas have merit since those would be cheap by products and be closer to a ceramic. Which can be harder then the pure material. The curved shield plus only putting the iron and glass in certain spots has merit. Other question would be would they perhaps go with lighter would to make up for the leather, iron, and glass. Keep up the good work. Really cool
Only through trial and error will we begin eliminating the wrong answers to find the correct ones. Truly fascinating that the amount of stopping power from JUST the fabric to the glued up, hardened fabric was astounding. You're talking about a 50% difference in penetration. That's insane. I never in my wildest dreams, until I found this channel, would have thought that cloth would be so effective against stopping arrows. Truly astounding.
always a good day when tod posts more vids, looking forward to part 4 mate!
Thank you Tod for all the effort in sketching, building, doing, filming and producing this amazing films. It's a joy to watch really. We transport ourselves into the medieval world and always learn something interesting abot their lives and warfare ways.
While watching most TH-cam videos I do it on the go and jumping forward, yours I make time to see and enjoy it. Making myself conformable, with a brew to enjoy the whole way. 😊
Interesting video, the different bands of treatment on the shield is enginious.
I bet it would be worth while to have a bit of extra protection such as the leather (or some metal) over the section in contact with arm, rather than the whole shield.
Could also be that certain "ranks" would be more likely to use something like this. In essence an officer who might not need the shield for anything but stopping arrows and wouldn't be carrying it at all times may get more use.
Always great fun to watch these videos.
Easily one of the best channels to show how awesome science projects/scientific theory could be.
(I used your channel as curriculum for my son over the summer). Great channel, love your videos.
Thanks and glad it is useful
Incredible video as always. I love how professional and scientific you get with these. I have a couple of things to add about the leather shield and the blacken gambeson coming from my Gaelic knowledge
On the leather shield. I know the that Irish and Scottish would wrap their targe / target shields in leather. This is most famous in 17th and 18th century Scots but they were doing this in the early 16th century as well. One particular shield that the Northern Irish and Western Scots used were wicker shields wrapped in leather. The youtuber Stoccata has made a couple and says they work great. Now I don't know enough about leather to know what thickness was used or how it was treated but I am curious on the test of wicker shields. Though looking at how the Scots used the targe it may have been used at an angle instead of holding it dead on. This would mitigate a lot of the penetration power of the arrows.
As of the blacken gambeson I have a source about Scottish warriors wearing gambeson coated in pitch. " John Major (1512), who wrote that the common people among the highlanders rush into battle having for body armour a linen tunic manifoldly sewn and painted or daubed with pitch, and covered with deerskin." In the book World of the Galloglass by Sean Duffy also mentions about coats being coated in wax. It is theories that the pitch and wax was used to make the coats and gambeson water resistant. Coming from a wet climate and being on the water the gambeson would take on moisture and get really heavy. Duffy also mentions about wanting to experiment wax gambeson to see if they are more buoyant.
Finally!🎉🎉 We get to see what happens, love your videos.
Just a thought on that black gambeson not working - it may be too hard.
Do you know how a bulletresistant vest works? I is a flexible material with high tensile strength. And the flexibility is what makes it work at least for small arms like pistols. The material doesn’t stop the bullet instantly like an armour plate, it flexes and the fibers stretch a small amount. So it slows the projectile down a bit more gradually.
The idea with pitch sounds interesting. That may give the fibers in the gambeson a bit more strength while keeping some of the flexibility. It may also “fill the gaps” in a way that a arrowhead has a harder time penetrating through. Won’t likely be perfect, but reducing the penetration just a few centimetres can save a life…
Fantastic video again. Thank you, Tod. ❤
Hard glue makes fabric brittle.
If thread is dipped in superglue it snaps like spaghetti
Yes, but the mechanism of failure is different in this case
The glass and iron filings probably act a lot like kevlar does in a modern ballistic vest. Spreads the impact energy over a slightly larger area and that's enough to prevent good penetration. I would imagine this would be an awesome covering for a pavise. Excellent video, as always!
My guess is that tanned leather would be pretty cheap to make in the period as compared to adding thin metal layer to the shield. Also metal needs to be maintained to prevent it from rusting, so it was time and labor consuming. I think this tanned leather variant could really be something that really was done back in the day. Glass powder however it may be a stretch. In contemporary body armor there is often ceramic involved to break up the bullet, but it really needs to be in a solid form to actually work. In powdered form it is useless. So maybe recipe meant glass chunks rather than glass powder, or powder works but only for stopping the blades. I guess we will see in the next part. cheers
Yeah, also, metal can be shaped in ways leather can’t. Why add steel to a sheild over using that same bit to make armor?
I would like to know if and by how much iron of the period was more expensive than (half-tanned) leather. Iron bucklers did exist in the same time period (14th to 15th century) as heater shields similar to the one in the video. But I wonder if iron shields of similar size were contemporary. Such shields did exist and were at least used in later periods in Western Europe, and I think at least in some cases were proof against bullets.
Looking forward to the edged tools bit. Love the little smile when Tod says " I've got quite a lot of edged tools. "
Ok, so my impression from these tests is that the leather with the iron and glass filings does make quite a significant difference, but it also suggests to me that the choice to return to bosses and center gripped shields in the coming centuries, as shown by Matt Easton, might originate here: with the improvement of ranged weapons and their power
8:50 I can imagine it being a case where a in a long battle or siege, troops rotating out of the front could take their shield and remove their arrows and then they'd be fired back (likely collected by someone else and distributed to archers), but definitely not a quick yank it out and the archer shoots it right after.
Though if the stocks of your own arrows weren't low, the recovered arrows would probably be stocked for later.
Maybe the optimal would be to put just a band of the leather where the arm is so the arm is more protected and the rest of the shield as is
i find your knowledge to be really amazing about a really cool subject that never seems to get the deep dive. i really like that you test and have data to backup your claims, and for that i thank you
Glad you enjoy it!
how much would the weight difference be between full red, full orange and full yellow? It could be that the most extra weight is the red part. I would be fairly happy with a full orange shield over yellow. The penetration difference is quite significant between those two.
BTW, the Zulu found out that having wet lether shields helps to stop the British musket fire. Will a wet lether shield perform better versus an arrow too?
red and orange are basically the same weight (the metal and glass powder might be in the realms of 30g or 50g at max, i'd think) , and the 5.2kg and 2.3kg he mentioned referred to full red and full yellow respectively
"Heavy shield day". I love that. I'm now imagining a knight getting with a foul mood and thinking, "today feels like a heavy shield day." Your point about the added weight being a significant downside is a good one. It would be interesting to know what the weight would be if it was all like the orange area, maybe that's the sweet spot between weight and protection. If it's say around 3.5-4 kilos, I can easily imagine a knight who is, let's say "bulkier" asking for a shield made like that.
Have you ever considered testing the efficacy of Chinese paper armour?
Tod, these are amazing. This is some great analysis of the technologies and how they actually worked in a practical way. This is priceless info. Thank you.
Several years ago Thegn Thrand(another TH-camr) made a shield of just 6mm pine, with rawhide over the front & back. The pine was mostly just a skeleton to hold the rawhide. But the results when tested were amazing. Incredible resistance to arrows & blades. So maybe rawhide is the thing to try rather than leather. It also makes a very light & weildly shield.
Happiness is shooting stuff with arrows!
I will look up that video. Fun fact, spruce has a better weight to strength ratio than pine.
If Todd is using half tanned leather then it basically has a core of rawhide with only the outer layers tanned into leather. If he is shooting fully tanned leather then it would be all leather.
This is the first I've seen of the series. I'll have to go back to see the others. I really appreciate your thoroughness and candour in your experiments. Always time well spent .
Medieval Chobham!
Absolutely love these practical tests on strange crafting techniques and weapons. More of this please!
The weight is about equal to an FN minimi. Considering all the other crap we carried at the same time, this shield construction seems entirely ok from a user perspective (imho)
Minime is weighty mind
You're only holding this in one arm though
@@feryth With a guige strap it would be less problematic!
@@feryth and a fair few of the people holding it in one arm were either raised from a young age to do it or worked very labour intensive jobs, there's documentation of people being Knighted on campaign at the age of 16, meaning they were fighting before then and training a long time before that, or were lucky.
But you aren't swinging your minimi, no?
Shield is relatively fix if you are trying to stop projectile fire.
But in melee, shield is a very dynamic thing that's moves around a lot.
Tod, thanks for your videos! The amount of work standing behind them is really amazing. Especially as a former HMB fighter, I absolutely love what you (and the other guys on this channel) do here :)
Thanks
My first thought on the gluehardened gambeson was „yeeeaaah even if you manage to wear it half way comfortable, it seems to be more „brittle“ than the regular one but i could not imagine it gaining enough hardness to defeat an arrow“.
So i am not surprised by the results, and even less as i think about mankind, trying to defeat kinetik energy always results in some kind of ductile materials mainly (steel, kevlar, sandbags, polymer in securityglass, …)
Another thing that came to my mind is: The additional leather on that shield will certainly not have the same arrow stopping ratio without the wood. I even think you can get rid of the leather on the backside and the difference is unmeasureble. Due to my hobby i shot and pulled out countless arrows in and out of many materials. My guess is, the front layer of leather gets cut by the arrowhead and pulled into the wood along the passing shaft. Could be, the leather works as a kind of glue/seal, improving the friction between shield and arrow. To back that up, it could be tested with: no leather on the back, loose leather on front, ridicilous thick leather and hardened(?) leather.
13:18 Well, as Matt Easton showed in a recent video, if a man at arms did elect to carry a shield, he was probably using a very toned down armor config for their shield arm, as Matt found it was basically unusable with a full arm harness.
He theorized they might have been using boss held for those who wanted to use a full arm harness with a heater shield, but especially with the weight that these treated shield have, I don't buy it, the arm strap just makes more sense for carrying this much weight.
Combining what I've seen between these two videos, my theory now is that bosses re-emerged on shields from this era as a deflecting surface to protect the part of the shield where the arm was on the other side, so that if an arrow hit that portion of the shield, the arrow would glance right off, not allowing for the arrow to make purchase into the shield at all, or if it did, with much reduced energy.
It makes sense since it's being incredibly economical with the steel, minimizing weight and maximizing protection to a key area, rather than facing the whole shield in steel which would be heavy and expensive. Plus it looks like shields of the old days, and certainly in Italy, nostalgia was all the rage in the 14-1500s.
That might be worth testing in a Part 4, making a boss for the front of this shield and trying to hit it, and seeing what it does, and if it stops arrows from hitting the strap area and piercing the arm.
The opening shot of the shield getting hit by multiple arrows in quick succession gave me strong "Hawk the Slayer" repeating crossbow vibes. Chunk! Chunk! Chunk!
Another fun and informative bit of experimental archaeology.
I just wanted to say that I love the Bowie knife that I got from you! It is a very useful knife, very comfortable in the hand and well balanced and has a good edge. Thanks very much!
My experience with paper mache and composite layup is the adhesive needs to be applied to each layer, enough to properly wet but not a excess. A roller, squeegee (or vacuum bag) to squeeze out extra adhesive helps. Applying glue to soak into an already assembled quilt would not be the preferred method. Especially with components that won't easily squeeze through the fabric.
I've heard of armor made of lacquered silk in the far east. Glued linen seems an obvious western analog if the method were known.
...and when you are wrong, you openly say it, because that is a result of your testing, too. 👍👍👍.... I love seeing that. Not trying to prove any particular point, just to get wiser.
Keep up the good work 👍💪👍
Thanks and yes it is important
Excellent video Tod! At that range for a target that size, your aim is to be commended! This is the kind of experimental work that we just don't see anywhere else.
Thank you on both counts
Just started watching, and already know that video is awesome.
FINALLY! I've waited for this so long
Thanks for consistently creating subtitles for your films.
Heres an interesting test, its not historical but apparently kitchen tiles can be used to create sacrificial one time bullet proof armour. I would love to see a bolt against that. Cheers J
Remember the added weight may only be needed in certain areas like the top line down passed the arm straps. That could be a patch put on the wood then over wrapped with regular painted cloth. .. You're on the right track, there are some prepper channels using river rock or ceramic tiles, cookie sheets, and epoxy with fiberglass to make firearm protection.
Wrapping the edge where blades were likely to bite and protecting the area that the arm was closely wrapped in the shield would make the most sense. The idea of targetting areas of the shield for extra protection makes total sense. Then of course there might be areas needing counterweighting or extra protection even where not needed for reasons of balance.
Hello Tod, I enjoy watching your workshops. If you ever run out of ideas, you can try shields and armor against wizard powers: lightning, fireballs, icebolts and the most deadly spell against every heavily armored knight, quicksands. Weren't those times full of magic? In any case, a good idea to attract an easily bored audience.
But you can still check how an ambush in the forest with cutting down trees on a column of soldiers works. Or whether medieval tanks protected against any weapons, I meant Hussite wagons. Or spikes in a covered hole in the ground like pinji traps in Vietnam. Or a collapsed bridge over a river while marching, or in full armor it was difficult not to drown.
Tod: Takes scope off.
Also Tod: Sub 9MOA grouping first try.
You're a good shot with iron sights, man.
Thanks
Was waiting for this! Can't wait
about time you posted some new content! i need you, my internet dad, to post stuff so i can watch it with my actual dad!
That's so cool.
I love what you are doing and i wish you luck, Tod!
Very well done, testing, looking forward to seeing how the shield performs against edged tools.
you mentioned that a thin layer of steel might do as well or better.
I think that the point is that it is quite easy to glue some glass and iron shavings into your shield cover than it is to forge (and buy) a metal sheet.
Metal shields are a 1500's item and far stronger for less weight but by then there trying to make them bullet proof.
And they had some success for a few decades.
An outer blackened layer might help with weather proofing, to especially if it uses pitch. Also a single harder layer can help deflect a bit of energy before the softer cloth inners catch the arrow.
Todd, great work as usual .The exciting news about the Roman Spathi, Gladius and Pilum found in a dead Sea Cave this week is really amazing.I would like to go to Jerusalem to study them (metal,construction methods etc ) . You should look at that as well.
Tod, this was still a successful test of the black gambeson. The result was negative of course, but the test was successfully executed with solid trustworthy result.
Every time I see a new Todd notification we are all set 🎉
Okay, now follow me on this one. How about, instead of iron filings and glass, you made the outer layers of leather, then a few layers of something readily available in the middle like horse hair.
Not just globbed on, but slather the inner layer with glue or pitch and lay on a layer of horse hair or jute running horizontally. Then another layer of glue followed by another layer of hair going vertically. And so on.
I think this would essentially be a medieval version of something like carbon fiber or micarta. But I think that a layering of adhesive and fiber between layers of hardened leather would work well and be relatively light.
Not sure if anyone would have thought of this back in the day, but I think that you, Tod, could put it to the test with both aplomb and the Lockdown Longbow.
Thanks for the content, it's amazing as always!
The blackened gambeson results don't surprise me. Aldrete et. al's test showed that glued linen was less effective than quilted linen for a given level of thickness. Of course, they tried to spin it as glue being more effective because you need fewer layers...ignoring that their thick layers of "authentic" linen probably actually weighed more overall compared to their thinner modern linen which, again, offered the same or better protection for a given thickness.
Re: the King's Mirror, there's no mention of pitch in there. That's modern suspicion, not original text. As always, I think the Lübeck jack's lampblack and boiled linseed treatment is the blackening the King's Mirror suggests. That makes it waterproof and much harder wearing.
I also think, as I've said before, that the "shield" in the text is a wooden former, not an actual shield, and this recipe was for hardened leather armour rather than a shield covering.
It most probably is a recipe for armour, considering that there is a text written in Arabic from the 12th century concerning the manufacture of a similar leather composite armour.
Have you considered testing with pressure tanned leather/ It is used for high end leathers for motor cycling. (e.g. Hein Gericheh.).
11:50 hard to get across on a post. the leather would likely cause a friction as it is soft. The dissipation of energy would reduce as the leather flexes in then tears. There would be some effect to the arrow. Where once the wood Fibre or rigid material has been punched though have broken then the friction would be minimal as end grain usually. Soft wood or flax etc may jact more like leather. . wood end grain would act like a brush where the leather would sort of want to grip and go with it. Be interesting to see a super slo motion and capture speed at difference times of penetrations…. Slo mo guys collab…
I worked with insulation for many years and a common way of making some materials tougher was to get the bitumen to its boiling point for some time to make it harder then apply a very thin coat to the surface and while it was still hot apply a cloth, roll the cloth into the bitumen then when it was smooth allow it to cool before applying a second thicker coat of bitumen. I guess the same could be done with leather. We also used asphalt which is bitumen mixed with clay and this was even harder, like a cross between rubber and glass.
Still interested on what layers of wool or fibre would do, like in a Targe. That and the studs made them pistol proof to a certain extend (video test on youtube).
You mean this one? th-cam.com/video/Q1kdBDNnd3U/w-d-xo.html
I don't think the arrows poking through matters at all, or means the shield failed. The shield isn't there to reflect arrows and look pretty at the end of the battle, it's to keep the wearer alive. Except for the arm strap, the shield isn't going to be flushed against the body. So a few inches of penetration doesn't matter - anything less than 20cm+ is probably annoying as it off balances the shield, but nothing more. At the arm strap it does matter, but there's extra padding there, plus the wearer is presumably going to have at least mail armour, so the arrows poking through doesn't matter either.
Seeing the results of various tests involving shields and arrows, one may wonder, why would anyone use a shield strapped to his arm instead of holding it away from his body.
@@henriknemeth3370 Just because it's strapped to the arm, doesn't mean the arm is held tight against the body. There's the whole length from shoulder to elbow to hold it away. That's more than enough distance.
Great work Tod, bringing history to life again. Stark 👍
One of my favorite channels. Tod!
I think here we are seeing rather more the effect of composite materials being greater than the sum of their parts than the added leather and glue in its own right doing the extra work. I expect the benefits are rather more because the glue and leather being a bit elastic helps the wood resist splitting down the grain and wants to close that tear up. With the glass and iron probably helping only a little mostly by providing a harder material to blunt the tip and more mass for the arrow to move, though it may also help the glue lock the layers together and spread the impact over more of the leather.
So I expect you could probably go very very thin leather and glue layer(s) and still get much, perhaps even all of the benefit shown here. I may be horribly wrong on that, so testing would be required of course. If you want to go further Tod might I suggest doing a similar shield construction with much thinner leather, and perhaps just a layer of glue to attach a layer of the iron filing and glass on their own, along with a shield constructed of much thinner wood so the leather and glass layers as you just demonstrated will then bring this new shield back up to that more weldable weight. That would give us a better idea of how much it is the extra mass, the materials, and the compositing of them.
Or cross grain wood layers glued together, which I understand the Romans used.
Very interesting results and video as always.
Makes one think that it might have been a medieval-era armchair expert "reinventing" the shield perhaps.
On a separate thread: It would be really interesting to see how a shield would stand up against arrows that hits it from an angle.
How big of a difference it makes etc.
Thanks for your work :)
Keep in mind that the heavier shield includes glass and iron filings in the red section, that could be a fair bit of weight. Also no leather in the yellow section.
But a 5kg shield that protects a lot better, seems reasonable. Romans used a 10kg shield I believe.
I think a guige strap reduces the feel of the weight as well!
I love the sound of those arrows moving past the camera. I wonder how much of that is the feathers vs the shaft. If it is the feathers I wonder it it would change the sound with owl feathers
Dear Tod,
I have literally just signed up to youtube, for tge sole purpose of making this comment.
About blackened gambesons, the King's Mirror (Konungs Skuggsja) specifically states that the fabric is soft, as that same cloth that is used for the gambeson, is also used for the warriors underwear. Furthermore, it also specifies that this kind of armour is the best type, when fighting on ships.
I therefore find it highly unlikely that blackened gambesons would be hardened with tar or pitch. Personally, I believe iron dye to be more likely.
With regards- A history student, currently writing about medieval Danish armour.
PS: Subscribed.
Very informative video again. So...a thin layer of metal?...on the front towards the attacker, or on the back?...on the front more deflections that could be good and bad. on the back so that the arrow has been slowed down, less penetration and less deflecting.
or of course in the middle of a wood sandwich, that allows for easy attachment of the wood...
You should definitely try making "custom" arrowheads. Something that you think might be better at armor penetration for example. We don't have ALL the arrowheads from the medieval period and they were experimenting too. I'd really love to see what you come up with the "perfect" arrowhead them might have used.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Tod. A very interesting video. I am not an expert but hose extra layers might be useful on a pavise for crossbow or bow armed people to hide behind.
Genuine test - proving you were wrong - kudos!
Today as always love it. The shirt is amazing. You should try swing the sheild around I wonder if leather glass mix on the back instead of the front would make a difference?
Always fascinating and interesting content Tod thank you for taking the time to make these videos!
Wondering about the glass and rather than a fine power if it was larger pieces it might have the potential to behave like some of the ceramic armor plates that exist.
Definitely also for arrows only looks like a good idea to just have it localised around the arm if you wanted to keep the weight down.
1:20 how far out the back? Better still how far if i add a padded cloth(gambeson) or wooden layer? you have only added to the outside in a uniform wrap? i would like to see a pen test on a shield with backing made to absorb the stab beyond a small patch over the arm it seems like that tiny bit of leather did alot and layers add alot... are you intentionally using elasticity in the mountings to absorb impact??? pentation would be alot deeper with stiffer mounts unless the bolts got drastically thicker beyond the stopping point.
Curious if you could make a shield that has the material under the red zone only in the area where the arm would be placed and light material (yellow) for the rest. Be the ideal mix of protection and lightness. Great videos!
with armor and padding that needle bodkin would leave at most a slight stinging flesh-wound but not impact your ability to fight whilst the yellow needle bodkin would literally nail your arm to the shield and maybe put both out of action.
Tho the single point of contact at the bottom suspending the shield allows it to pivot slightly left and right on impact dispersing the kinetic force so it should perhaps penetrate more in the yellow zone than it does.
The problem with glue infused gambeson is that it's too stiff to work as a soft armor. That could also be the reason why arrows went deeper on the glued gambeson - it did worse at dispersing the force of the impact. That, and hide glue is not very water resistant. Shields and scabbards were covered with gesso for that reason, otherwise if they were exposed to moisture for a length of time (and we're talking mostly in the context of longbows and British Isles warfare, there's a LOT of moisture on a war campaign) they would soon start to rot, which I think might be the main reason why they opted for quivers to be made just of tanned leather, or other more water resistant materials (early medieval birch bark quiver findings come to mind).
This one had some particularly satisfying sounds
So glad you have a 130lb simulator now. Loving it.
About the only thought I have is for the blackened gambeson. Instead of soaking the whole thing just the outer layer. That should help with crushing blows. It won't do anything for arrows, swords, and axes, but it might help. Like with armor that has a layer that is brittle and a layer that is ductile.
I would love if you test the pitched blackened gambeson. But use the pitch as they use it when pitching a pitcher.
That is melt the resin on slow fire until it starts bubbling, so all the turpentine and volatiles left. If you let it cool it will result a shiny glass/plastic like surface that is not sticky. Usually pretty nice yellow or amber color. It is hard and brittle. Basically you made rosin. If brittleness is an issue you can temper it with charcoal and a little bit of fat. That also makes it black and more plastic like.
Then make a few layer of pitched canvas over regular gambeson.
Honestly I think they would have made such thing just to make it shiny and waterproof. Rosin was a common product since ancient times with many use cases from waterproofing pots and barrels, as glue or to use it as medicine.
Pleasure to watch as always.
re why they might have used it - it might have been cheaper / easier to make from local materials? Leather was easy to come by (compared to steel), so was wood. So I'd imagine that some of the lesser lords from remote / poor areas might prefer to use shields like this for their men at arms.