Why Medieval Plate Armour NEEDS GAPS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- Everyone wants to talk about the gaps in full plate armour. But let's talk about why the gaps are there.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk
#medieval #history #knight
We all know the gaps in the armour exist so Kevin Costner can teach the peasentry how to shoot for them within a short, exciting montage.
Just a minor correction. For the algorythm gods. Both frogmouth and great bascinets were not always fixed in the front. The frogmouth you showed is a very specific early XVIth century german jousting example. Lots nad lots of sources show forgmouth and great bascinets being only strapped in the back, and no attachement in the front. Which allows a great deal of head movement. That's how I have my own helm set up for example, it works great. The back strap keeps the vision slit level at all times, even whn it gets hit, so the helm doesn't shift on my head, but at the same time I can move the helm around and see quite a lot.
don't know if it's true or not, but i heard from someone that if you type the word that you typed 6th it actually invalidates the comment from the system
don't know if it's true or not, but i heard from someone that if you type the word that you typed 6th it actually invalidates the comment from the system
I feel like 14th century armour (especially the 1340-70s) doesn’t get enough love, would be great to hear what kinds of visors they had pre houndskull, and more on the switch between the coat of plates to the rounded “corazzina” or whatever it’s supposed to be called
It's worth noting that modern soldiers are even less protected than most people realize, as most issued helmets can't stop a rifle round from normal combat ranges and are mostly to protect from shrapnel and falling debris from artillery near misses.
And soldiers today won't necessarily wear everything they have available. Protection comes at a cost!
I heard one story from a soldier in fallujah that was hit in the helmet by a spray of ak rounds, he kept running for cover after the fact and kept going. Modern helmets seem to be able to turn standard rifle rounds sometimes ?
@@vedymin1 On paper they shouldn't be able to, but armor ratings more or less assume the round is hitting perpendicular from point blank. Stopping even fairly large caliber rifle rounds from a couple hundred meters or glancing hits isn't unlikely.
The helmets work fine though? They won't hold up to a sustained barrage or anything, but nothing you can wear will. They deflect blows from most assault rifles fine, as long as they are not defective or compromised in some way. Modern armour isn't designed to make you bulletproof. No one charges into a hail of bullets depending on the armour to protect them. You use cover, and suppressing fire to move. Unless you're an idiot.
You protect people from what endangers them. Shrapnel from artillery and other explosions cause far more battlefield casualties than rifle bullets, so that's what the helmet _must_ withstand. Incidental protection against bullets is a bonus, of course. But the people buying the helmets assume that if things have gone badly enough that every soldier is taking bullets to the head, what they need is better planning rather than better helmets.
It is scary to think about being in an unarmored peasant levy with spears going up against these well-fed, well-trained, well-rested, very strong men-at-arms in almost invulnerable armor. You don't stand a chance.
At least by the 15th century (when Matt’s armor is representing), most soldiers were decently well equipped. Breastplate/Brigadine, helmets, often gauntlets. I can’t speak for before that though. Either way though, yeah, it’s not going to end great for the standard infantryman if they don’t vastly outnumber the fully armored opponents. Even if they did, men-at-arms/knights were often deployed with the support of regular infantry.
Ehh, in general yes but high elevation and forcing you opponent to fight is very unfavorable terrain can even the odds alot
That’s a large part of what maintained the hierarchy of medieval society. Between the church selling a fear of hell for naughty people, and the nobility being able to chop you up for being naughty, they had a pretty good grip on power.
No different from modern warfare where you have tanks alongside infantry. Each have their advantages, and knights without the others fighting alongside him could not win a war any more than a tank without infantry support cannot win a war today.
The peasant may be more lightly armored, but was therefore more agile (at least when the knight was on foot) and greater in number.
Just look at how vulnerable Richard III became once he was unhorsed.
"here's your helmet"
"What about the rest?'
"...go with God."
No armor EVER was meant to make someone impervious to all harm. It is there to improve the user's odds.
Raimond de Fourquevaux, or whoever actually authored that 1548 treatise, wrote that men-at-arms were & needed to be immune to anything short of gunpowder weapons. He even thought it was a waste of time to aim the heavy lance at men-at-arms & recommended targeting the horse instead.
Athletic shoes, running shoes, trainers, etc., are meant to help absorb some shock impact forces and provide some comfort. But cushioning can be taken to such extremes that wearers feel disconnected with the ground surface. Ankles can begin to roll without wearers even realizing it. So some level of tactile feedback response from the ground is called for. Proprioception refers to a healthy level of sensation of the ground surface traction, firmness, slope, etc.
Older airplanes had direct hinges or cables linking cockpit controls to external control surfaces on the wings, and for a long time there was a proportional relation between the amount of resistance on the one vs. the other. Then hydraulics came in to provide power boosting. And then fly-by-wire tech came online that complete translated manual inputs in controls into digital signals that remotely actuated motors to move external control surfaces. Some digital controls have been so removed from any sensation of reality that pilots have found themselves pushing on the controls until they damaged them. Forceful resistance or vibration has to be inserted back into the hardware in order to provide some satisfaction to pilots.
I think this comes the closest. Full body armor made for Giuliano de 'Medici (1479-1516) by Austrian master armourer Konrad Seusenhofer
Even tank armor works the same. No tank is impervious to everything. Crew survivability is more important.
No armour was ever meant to make someone impervious to all harm because this is simply _impossible_ to do, and will always be impossible, even if we some day develop sci-fi force fields and other stuff.
In the case of personal protective equipment, the user still needs to be able to move in said armour under his own power and fight in it. In the case of vehicular armour, the same holds true.
It is always cheaper and easier to develop a weapon designed to defeat armour than it is to develop armour designed to defeat most common threats. This holds true nowadays, even with armoured fighting vehicles. Something like an FGM-148 Javelin is expensive piece of kit, at least $240,000 for the missile alone. But that is *still* cheaper than the sticker price of a T-72 at at least $500,000, which of course doesn't include the other expenses of running a T-72 like fuel, ammo, spare parts, rations, and the training for the three fellows crewing the thing. And the human cost of their deaths when their tank gets brewed up by said Javelin.
In the race between arms and armour, arms will always come out ahead, and armour will always be playing catch-up. Armour sometimes does advance to the point where highly specialised and niche weapons are needed to deal with it, but tactics to deal with said armour also help level the playing field a bit for the chaps who don't have access to said armour.
Please, more armor! Zac, Drach, Gavin, Nick.
Ha Ha, I also had the joke in mind of steel spheres rollinf to the battle field.
Next video: Matt in full armor with pollaxe attacks a ballistic gel dummy.
Your new suit looks fantastic Matt. Really like the white steel and the goldy color. You would've been a rock star 600 years ago!
Henry's tournament armour is truly awesome.
There is actually one type of armour with no gaps. 100% protection. It's called stay at home.
Hey Vsauce, Michael here. Your home security is great...or is it ?
Plot armor as well
and what if the marauders break into your home?
Yep in this case you could say "my home is my castle"
As someone who primarily practices Chinese and Japanese martial arts, I find this adorable. You are taking such care to consider and respond to potential and actual concerns and questions about your cool new armor. Informative.
2:01 LOL Zac seems to be quite enjoying himself
Great video! ❤
So, with modern armor, it's easy to decide on the tradeoffs- modern infantry armor is designed to protect the areas of the body which, if hit, will result in an extremely high likelihood of death (not to say unarmored areas wouldn't also have a high likelihood- the gut stands out as an area that, if you get hit, you're probably dying of sepsis), because if someone is just hit and disabled, modern medical intervention can save their life. If you get shot in the arm, you're probably out of the fight, but with proper medical care you're probably not out of this mortal coil. How does that sort of thing play into pre-modern armor?
The clearest connection I can see is if you look at armouring priority, i.e. which parts of the body people armoured first. Across all different ages, the first piece of equipment you bought if you were going to buy any armour, was a helmet. Cultures where people often fought with no other armour besides a shield, still wore helmets because basically anything hitting your head unarmoured could kill you.
Then, focusing on medieval Europe here, the second thing you got armoured if you could afford it, was your chest. If you look at early medieval mail shirts, they only really cover the torso and the shoulders but are normally rather short-sleeved. Later in the middle ages, coats of plates begin to develop, a type of armour made of overlapping metal plates sewed or riveted to a cloth outer layer and again, these coats cover mostly the torso.
During the latter half of the 14th century, plate protection becomes available though we see interesting developments. Manuscript art shows some knights foregoing plate arm or leg-harness and just using mail to protect the limbs, whereas some form of plate protection for the torso is always present. Important to note is that the earliest breastplates only come down to the waist included no plate protection for the abdomen.
Finally, you can look at the material evidence itself. The breastplate (and placard, if applicable) are often the thickest parts of the whole armour suit, with the centre bit covering the organs sometimes getting up to 3mm thick.
@@heilmodrhinnheimski East Asian soldiers prioritized torso armor before helmets quite often.
Somewhat related perhaps - but even in the middle of 16th century, in times of the final flowering of plate armor, some military writers allow, or seeminlgy even recommend mail sleeves for halberdiers.
John Smythe wrote :
good reveted maile that might cover all their shoulders and armes even from under their Collers, breasts and backes, to the verie Gauntlets, considering that by the good defence and easinesse of such sleeves of maile, they might mannage their halbards the better,
Seems to suggest that halberdiers would wield their weapons better in mail sleeves.
Theoretically it was possible back then to tailor plate harness for arms so well that mobility would be almost uncompromised, despite covering almost everything, but in practice it was probably possible only for very wealthy people, and in controlled environment, like in all those tournament armors for Henry VIII and so on.
In the field, mail sleeves were probably much easier to don, wear, and wouldn't get damaged, displaced etc. so eaisily.
Certainly they were very popular item for all kinds all soldiers all the way to the end of 16th century, despite being usually much more expensive than most breastplates.
Another advantage for mail is that pretty much anyone can do a simple repair in the field with minimal supplies and tools. To fix a hole in mail all you need is a supply of rings, which are fairly universal, and ideally rivets (yes riveted mail is what they wanted, but a butted patch is better than just a hole), along with some pliers and a hammer.
Repairing plate might not be feasible in the field (depending on its complexity and how it joins the other plates), and any replacement parts are much more specific to the part needed to be replaced.
I am pretty sure that many, if not, most, knights/men-at-arms wore full plate armor at war. Am I wrong?
@@mohammadtausifrafi8277
Yes, generally the higher rank soldiers, which were the knights and men at arms, were wearing plate. They were also mostly used as cavalry, as the higher classes could afford horses and armor suited for the role.
However, it depends entirely on the individual in many cases, especially if you include other professional soldiers of the time. As an example, Landsknecht historically wore little to no armor. Additionally, if you were too poor to afford more complete plate armor, you wore what you could afford.
Also, halberdiers, which the OP is talking about, were generally not the higher-class soldiers, but a middle ground between the wealthy knights / men at arms and the basically unarmored and armed peasant levies.
@@mohammadtausifrafi8277
Probably, hard to be sure because man and arms and knight equipment would generally be noted down and documented less often than with common soldiers.
As Matt mentioned though, there are still some depictions of people in full Italian harness but with mail sleeves on their arm.
My point is that popularity of mail sleeves in 15th and 16th century was great, probably because it was probably still most reliable way to have complete protection without impeding mobility too much, for something that can rotate and move in so many ways as human arms.
@@lscibor I am sure there are depictions of people wearing full plate armor also, even an ignoramus like me have seen many. I think mail was always very popular, but people did wear full plate armor.
Even armadillos have gaps!
Besagews are also decorative. Surprised they're not used more in film & TV. Tassets as well.
2:56 that's the gap that worries me most. It reminds me of the stories about Henry V's troops being so stricken with dysentery they cut holes in their pants.
Who knew medieval armored combat was just an early form of grab ass?
Turkish oil wrassling with more clothes on.
I would love to see a video on the "emergency" version of the armor. That is to say, when you need to get armor on as fast as possible without help, what would that look like? What parts would you put on if your camp was suddenly ambushed and you knew a fight was imminent, and you had minutes to get on what you could?
In a battle, you don’t even have to necessarily defeat a lot of fully armored knights. They need to have many more less armored people still fighting, and you only need defeat relatively few to start a route or withdrawal.
A force comprised of too many fully armored knights with too few supporting pieces will mean they will be slower in traveling, and then you can threaten their supplies, which are vital if the enemy needs to remain that well equipped, as it doesn’t matter how armored the enemy is if they’re too deprived to fight
Thats cool that you gonna mail those elbows, that was my main question.
I will recap my questions from the last video but abbreviated.
1. The lack of a ridge or neck guard on the larger pauldron, was that so lances wouldn't have any thing to find purchase on? I'll assume that shoulder would be forward of the other.
2. How did they "gold" your armour?
3. If you were a knight back then would you have oppted for mail in the gaps?
Now that I think of it, it might have been my questions/observations that inspired this video. I did point out the lack of mail but also asked how common it was not to cover those areas as I have heard you mention that before. Therefore, it was an informed question.
To be clear it wasn't a hey Matt did you know you don't have mail on the actual armour you had designed to your specifications and actually wore is missing mail? No. It wasn't meant like that. Unfortunately, text doesn't convey many things actual speech does. I mentioned the lack of mail to preface the questions that followed. Context is important. 😙
And to be clear no disrespect is intended whatsoever. 😀
I heard once that the value of armor is to protect you from the blow you don't see coming. In a melee you could well be fighting one foe and have another one or more come up behind you or from the side, or you could step over or around a fallen man who is not quite out of the fight yet, or get shot at by a crossbowman, etc. So you don't really have to have an opponent you're engaged with "get around you" to get stabbed in the butt, or elsewhere your armor isn't.
And that's why anime-style 'plate gloves and boots and clothing elsewhere' armour looks so wrong. It's a duelling outfit at best, not battlefield gear.
That's what I think of looking at Matt's harness. I'm sure it won't ever fail him for anything he does in the modern day, even going quite hard against skilled opponents. But if I were walking on to a battlefield where I _might_ get isolated and surrounded, I think I'd want to close up that backside. Except, as Matt pointed out, for folks who are riding a horse in the battle... the unarmoured bits are all touching saddle.
Armored saddle at that.
But what an ignominious epitaph, "Here lies Sir Buttivere, died of a pike up the ass".
I don't specifically have a question about heavy armour but in the context of a massive battle with relatively closely packed ranks has once again gotten me curious about a kind of historical timing mismatch.
Essentially, armour works *really* well. We're talking about little gaps in nearly impossible to reach places against opponents who are actively defending themselves (and additionally, forcing you to active defend yourself, which drastically narrows your opportunities to offend them). Battlefields frequently ended up at a more or less stand-still when two legions of well equipped and moderately well trained heavy infantry lined up against each other and it took complex maneuvering, or cavalry actions, or light infantry flaking actions etc to break the standstill (at which point a previously incredibly solid army fighting forwards could collapse frighteningly quickly with massive casualties).
So assuming all of that is correct and true (citation: literally all of the sources?) we have armies fighting for a period of perhaps several *hours*. But intensive hand-to-hand combat is one of the most tiring things in the world, even for near naked boxers and MMA guys. Dudes in full plate harness, who *don't* get a break and a sit-down every three minutes are going to be exhausted well inside of five minutes, maximum. (And lets remember that modern athletes are significantly better conditioned than historical people ever were, for a huge range of reasons).
So how is this actually playing out, at the front of the army, on the day? Do they just batter each other for a short period and then everyone stands there, exhausted, vaguely pushing at each other in a threatening way? Are other ranks of people constantly filtering up to the front to replace exhausted (and possibly wounded) combatants? Does that take a *lot* of practice and training to execute correctly, without suddenly creating the potential for gaps in your line?
Certainly, we don't usually see anything remotely like this in depictions of actual battles. Hollywood is especially mediocre here, with *any* military clash immediately resulting in super high casualties and the 'armour is worthless for bad guys' trope. But historical battles took a long time, and were usually not decided by small variations in frontline skill and heroism (notable examples aside, like the 'give me ALL your pikes!' guy), especially as the combination of heavy (enough) armour and incredibly limited mobility (absolutely laugh out loud madness to suggest that you can get round to the back of someone's legs in a real war), and, I guess, real live fighters have maximum respect for the risks and consequences of excessive bravado in edged-weapon combat.
TL;DR - How *exactly* are exhausted and heavily armoured guys at the front of the battle getting out of the fight, through the crush of their own ranks etc, to get out of the fight long enough for a rest and some water, to be replaced by fresh (or at least not as tired) fighters. Or did this just not happen and so the actual fighters at the front of the battle were just standing there, utterly exhausted, after the first five minutes, for up to several hours, while pretty much nothing interesting happened?
This is a good question & we don't really know the answer. As you say, there's no way anyone could fight continuously on foot at high intensity for very long while wearing full armor. Even with minimal gear, fighting at 100% gases athletes out in a matter of minutes. I've read a lot of historical military manuals, particularly from 16th-century Europe, & there's not a lot about rotating troops. Ming Chinese forces did have clear rotation techniques according to the Great Ming Military blog. One little tidbit is that Raimond de Fourquevaux, or whoever actually wrote that 1548 treatise, mentioned that the halberdiers of his ideal army would the pikers/targetiers at their heels "to reskue them with their Halbards" (1589 translation). So, he didn't detail it, but Fourquevaux had some notion of halberdiers supporting or relieving pikers turned targetiers in an infantry melee. (Fourquevaux's ideal pikers had targets on their backs to sling down to use with their swords in close combat.) But in Fourquevaux example battle, the halberdiers, who are behind eight ranks of pikers, don't even fight. He noted how soldiers in the infantry slugfest became so pressed that they mainly fought with their daggers. Various other 16th-century treatises say the same about how tight battles between pike formations got. It's unclear how rotation would work under such circumstances, unless there was a line of intense combat with soldiers all jumbled together at grappling range & more open ranks behind on either side. Something like that is possible, & would allow for at least a measure of rotation.
I always love a follow-up context video. Very useful. :)
Fantastic am looking forward to seeing and hearing how you progress in the adaptation of this brilliant harness for different purposes. 👍
Thanks for the sharing this with us
Love the video I I've learned more from your videos than any others thank you for all the hard work keep it up
I haven't worn armor, but I've ridden horses a lot. The covering of the inner and back thighs are important in preventing you from slipping around. This is why riding breeches often have leather or similar material in the seat and inner thighs. I think (subject to correction by someone who's tried it) that iron or steel, even mail, would cause more slipping in the saddle. Before you tell me that in one of those high "beartrap" saddles, you won't slip, I challenge you to try it. You absolutely will slip. Even if you can't move much fore and aft (which you will more than you probably think) side-to-side slipping matters as well. Everything is a tradeoff. Being more stable in the saddle may matter more to some warriors than the additional protection afforded by armoring the backs of the legs.
I am reminded of Terry Pratchett's _DEATH proof box._
It was completely sealed and impervious to all harm. Nothing could reach the creator inside.
But he forgot the air holes...
some folk forget that very few soldiers were actually Knights who were mounted, so I would ask them what armor *they* are going to opt in for a the relative cost of a car or even a house (it's not cheap stuff, I mean), or out of, when you have to carry and wear it as you _walk_ there? 12-24 _miles per day?_
In combat, do you just sand there like a lump? or do you actually _fight?_
I don't know, gaps.
She's got gaps, I got gaps, together we fill gaps, I dunno.
The ability to move rapidly and with dexterity is vital in combat. The guys who think the more armor the better have never been in combat.
True dat...if you lack mobility, you can then be easily overwhelmed, put on your ass and stripped off those plates that have sealed your fate, tho have failed to do so for your body 🐸
Someone can still move around quickly in full plate harness. But can they do it an hour into the duel?
It’s not about the thickness, it’s about the stamina.
@@martytu20 We were talking about the amount of armor that would quickly gas you out, or impede mobility heavily, not a standard knightly field plate.
@@martytu20 The point is that the armor must have 'gaps' in order to do that moving around. So there's always a trade off between protection and mobility. Mostly this is determined by the combat functions of the soldier in question. You can have near-perfect protection, but it will be heavier and less 'giving' for freedom of movement. I hate to say it: "context".
Yes more armour videos pls, I have always wondered were the straps ever a target for an opponent to try and loosen the armour or make it fall off?
This is so informative. Thank you for always providing us with insights and info on how they used these objects. Btw, have you ever made a video about how knights trained to be fit for battle? Like what kind of workouts or strength training they had to do, specifically? Thanks in advance in case you reply!
In martial arts I've often worn protective gear with less than full coverage, but it doesn't really matter if I'm moving and defending myself. If I only need to defend my armpits and knees, blocking is a lot easier.
I wonder if there was anyone that ever covered their entire face in mail under the helmet. Like completely covered, eyes and everything lol.
What was the technological breakthrough in this period that allowed armour to be made flexibly covering so much, that even now with modern metallurgy and manufacturing techniques we still can't really improve on?
If anyone thinks it is easy to penetrate the gaps in armour should go over to Dequitum and see some of their non-choreographed Knight Fights.
"There are no solutions - only trade-offs." - Thomas Sowell. All armour, all weapons, almost everything we interact with is some kind of trade-off or compromise.
Great discussion. Thank you for the follow up. Cool armour. Cheers!
Well, most of the "I'd just do X" claims are made by armchair experts. In this case, the closest they likely have ever gotten to actual medieval combat is probably the local Renaissance fair or foam sword LARPs.
They have no idea how difficult it'd be to actually hit the gaps while the target is moving and trying to hit back, let alone actually penetrate whatever is filling those gaps.
@@patrickdix772 I believe you are correct.
Thanks for the reply. Cheers!
The same rules apply to modern motorcycle armour too!
To be honest, I wasn't very enamoured with the new helmet when I first saw it but seeing it with the full harness it had really grown on me.
Good working on Fiore's first play of sword in armor there!
I felt that first hit.
I noticed There is no Hard Protection For the Naughty Bits. I Don't think the chain mail skirt would stop you from being disabled by a simple kick to the jewels. I think there should be something like a protective cup like hockey players wear.
It's a chain skirt, when he gets to it, not a cup. There's a lot there to stop a kick--including his sword.
@@thekaxmax That's my point if it comes to a grapple the first ting you do is knee them in the groin. And soft armour will not stop that.
Plate codpiece exist already in some depiction of late 15th century German Gothic armor from tomb effigies and before that faulds covered the groin making finding and kicking the groin difficult, not to mention the opponent might grab the kicking leg and drag the kicker to the ground.
Love the a-symmetric pauldrons. Do they work?
It’s not like the introduction of armor meant people would toss out everything ever learned about how to keep yourself alive before armor existed. Armor doesn’t replace learning to fight. It simply increases your margin of error.
As someone who research Japanese armor of the 14th and 16th century, this attitude happens all the time.
You look at the gap and see a weakness without considering the fact that armor is an object in motion during a fight, not static, and how the different components interact with each other.
this isn't true! everyone knows japan lacked iron, so they used less iron for their armor! just trust me bro.
@@Ose-here Nah bro their armor was made of wood, spit and paper mache
source: trust me bro (shadiversity lol)
Matt, could you do a video on the insane armours of the 16thC that had plate lames in the joints?
I know I've seen some with even plate armpits
And King Henrys armour with full plate around the groin and backside.
Looks great with the pointy open face helmet! Not sure what it's called, but its very stylish.
QUESTION :
Did knight in XV and XVI century wear full covering maile fastiqued to the body build of user (like in XII and XIII century) under plates sabatons boots etc etc ?
The most important point is they were trying to end each other, really end each other. That's why loads of people did not get home for dinner after a battle. Whatever the armour, if several pile on, you are ended...rightly. It's so much more than the armour; it's how they fought in teams. One-on-one; if a fight has lasted for more than 30 seconds, it's a case of attrition, who is the fittest. We must-must remember what they were aiming for, to end each other. That is a very different experience than most will ever have to face.
Do you have any information about how the British Sam Browne Belt sword frog functions in carrying a sword? can't seem to find any information anywhere
Now you just need specific sized ball mails. There might be a problem if the balls are hairy. Can be painful if the chain catches some ball hairs.
Hi Matt, could you please create a video about both armors of henry vii for the tournament at the field of cloth of gould? covering the question of what change of rules forced the creation of a different armor. what are the differences between both armors and their strengths and weaknesses. where did the tonlet armor had gaps. why were the helm of the tonlet armor specifically reinforced by "fluting"? and, of course, who won the tournament 🙂
thanks alot
If armour was looted (like from an enemy casualty) which parts could you reasonably expect to be able to wear yourself? I guess perhaps the helmet, but what about other parts?
Thing that I've noticed about your great bascinet interacting with the pauldrons is the limited range of motion because of the width of teh neck, maybe this is the reason why great bascinets become ever closer fitting to the neck from the mid 1430s or so, also articulation (ability to collapse) is added to those big pauldrons.
Your armour looks 1450s ish maybe early 1460s, am I correct?
1415-1485 seems like a period where where armour reaches its maximum coverage.
I think plate armor as a standard was at its peak in coverage during 1400-1450. Some 16th century plate armor covered the whole body, but these were tournament armor. The faulds were much more complete in coverage and had lower hemline. The back of the leg was often covered in mail or plate. Great bascinets offered more coverage and solid protection than Sallet Bevor combination or barbute. Pauldrons in 1420-1450 seems to be at its largest.
The shortcoming was that it would be thinner than 16th century armor and the metallurgy except those of Italian would be worse, being made of iron or low carbon steel. German armor from 1480 onward started the quenched and tempered medium carbon steel armor standard.
Is there a big tradeoff to having fully enclosed cuisses when fighting on foot?
It would be interesting to see, what happens, if some straps are not attached (to simulate them to break or be cut in battle) or attached incorrectly (to simulate mistakes in preparation due to haste or a bad squire). And how would it look, if you were alone and had to somehow improvise a way to put on all the armor without any help (maybe your company and your horse got killed, in an ambush and you took the armor of to care for your wounds, but now you don´t want to leave it there)?
The most concerning gap in your armour which would concern me is the great gaping gap between your legs, mailled or not. On Dequitem they seem to go for the crotch from time to time during their duels. Again, thanks for the follow-up.
But one does need mobility in the crotch area, just to be able to move feet. I wouldn't plate my crotch, ever. On that I can be assured, I shall never plate my crotch.
Hey Matt, couldn't help but notice the huge heather royal gap under your helmet while recording this video
Very true. I've survived actual combat & I learned quite quickly that compromises must be made in that dept & thats even with modern body armour. Besides most war fighters arent that worried about flesh wounds. It's the instantly deadly & maiming type injuries that the men worry about the most.
does the weight of the armor affect your balance or center of gravity? I wonder about the efficacy of tripping attacks with a bill or halberd to pull your feet out from under you. Since many helmets limit your ability to look down, you might not see it coming.
What'd happen if an army was caught and attacked out of armour? As you demonstrated it takes quite a lot of time and fiddling to get a set on, so would they try to do that? Or only some of the quicker and easier pieces? Are there records about the specifics of a situation like that?
Can you comment or do a video on this suit of armour? How much protection did it offer? Full body armor made for Giuliano de 'Medici (1479-1516) by Austrian master armourer Konrad Seusenhofer. Thnks! Love the channel BTW.
how is your armour golden? is it electroplated brass? how'd you do that in medieval times? is it durable?
What does your experience with medieval armor suggest, if anything, about future armor such as what Ironman wears or the Power Armor from the Fallout series of games? Will science be able to improve on plate armor to make science fiction armor a reality?
In modern times, when powerful firearms, missiles, and explosives are readily available, is it even worth the expense to try to protect one individual soldier? Could millions of dollars of armor be negated just because there would always be some “gap” or weak point even in science fiction armor?
Thank you for your always entertaining and informative videos!
Why not move to nanotech armor like the one in Crysis? Pretty much create an unbroken layer of adaptable particles that could change according to the situation.
When people say "just stab in the gaps" they often forget that inside the armor is a trained soldier that would rather avoid being stabbed. Getting to the gaps might be easy when the armor is on a stand, but it's very hard to do to a non compliant opponent, especially if you need to worry about said opponent stabbing you as well.
There's always a compromise between protection and movement. Do you want to be fully encased in armor but have slow cumbersome movements or have vital areas protected and still be light enough for quick movements. 👍👍
11:07 is it strange that, until you pulled down the visor, I didn't question why you were wearing a sallet for this video?
YOu usually close the gaps just by movement; trust me its hard to get to the openings when the guy has a sword in his hands and just needs to turn slighlty each time you try to get around him
Chain mail is perfect. You can protect 100% of your body with it and it's see through. If you want additional protection, just add more rings or a second coat. Ring density is what stops arrows IMO, it's easy for one ring to split from say an arrow but much much harder for that arrow to split two rings. Ring size and density. Oh, and chain mail made from half punched rings is literally half impervious to rings being split isn't it? Chain mail is PERFECT.
15:25 🤨📸 Challenge accepted
Well, it doesn't need gaps, as long as youre ok with not being able to move / move well.
How does your armour/ armour of the period work within a battle setting with multiple people on each side? A battle line with people protecting each other and facing attacks from all sides likely wants maneuverability more than weight of steel
The opposite really. A line of battle is - by definition - not facing attacks from all sides; it just faces attacks from the front: it is after all a line. Once you have attacks from the side your battle line is screwed. In all probability it will just rout unless it's composed of very high-morale soldiers, so the issue of being attacked (physically) from the side is seldom tested - you've (attempted to) run away at that point.
True. Good video. It's the same as the "Iron Triangle" of armoured warfare. Mobility, protection, hitting power. Cant be good everywhere. Sounds like some comments were made by people with a very limited knowledge of armour, and/or violence.
Armor is an insurance policy, not a guarantee. And most of the time, it's a fashion statement and status symbol
I swear I saw "Why Medieval Plate Armour NEEDS GPS" and thought it was going to be a story about your Armour getting nicked.
Sudden thought - how did they pad helmets? After all there was no sorbathane or memory foam back then. I understand some helmets were suspended , but really how did they pad their helmets/helms?
With layers of cloth, as usual.
Cloth or leather
By stuffing wool into quilted material. Ofc not all helmets had either padding or suspension, having just a cap or a headband.
Well, not armor of all periods.
With modern technology we are able to make fully encased suits, that's how space suits work.
And those could be made from armor materials. Which gets us to Iron men type suits
is there no way to cover up gaps like the arm pit without losing mobility? such as adding a small raised or diagonal plate sort of like what you have on your right arm's pauldron? also, is there a need to keep armor historically accurate? is it not ok (for you) to make unprecedented edits as long as they work? you always seem to reference how viable they are as effective armor based on historical precedent. lastly, would it be possible to use a halberd as a hook to pull a fully armored knight's leg out from under them? or to stab them in the ass.
Technically, yes. But you'd pay for it both in terms of cost and weight. As mentioned at one point in this video by Matt, Henry VIII had a set of armor being made for him that all of the joints and normal gaps covered by articulated lames ad the helmet had a bunch of small holes. But this was for a King, a rich and powerful one at that, so cost was no real issue. And being for tournament use, the extra weight wouldn't be that big of an issue since you wouldn't be fighting in it for too long. But maintenance would have been issue, I'd imagine that it wouldn't have been too difficult to jam up the lames from dirt and mud and a lucky blow could probably cause them to am as well..
At the end of the day all amor is a trade off. You could make armor well night impenetrable with only the tiniest of gaps but that would mean much heavier armor, as well as more expensive too. This is why tanks aren't evenly armored all around. Even the most heavily armored tank is still going to have relatively thin armor on the top of the turret and in the back in order to save weight, otherwise they wouldn't be able to move very fast.
@@Riceball01 i'm not actually talking about articulated plating, but more of a single plate attached so that it helps cover the hole, mainly the armpit, in a way that makes it more difficult to stab into with a sword or spear or whatever else while not stopping the motion of your arm, or as mentioned, your ability to hold a lance shaft. i wouldn't expect such a plate to weigh more than i dunno, quarter of a pound? 250 grams?
@@Riceball01 basically, what i mean to say is that is there really no way to make it worth more than a 50/50 trade for practicality?
@@offyourocker What you're thinking of is called a besegue, it was was a small plate or disc that hung in front of the armpit. But it wasn't fixed in place, it dangled there so it could potentially be knocked aside to show for a blow to the armpit, but I don't know know how likely that would have been.
As for your other question, there's always a trade off. Make the armor more protective you might end up making the armor heavier, more tiring, not difficult to move in, or all of the above. Given how many centuries plate armor had been evolving I think that if they're were a practical way of covering all of the gaps without sacrificing mobility or making the armor heavier, I think that somebody would have figured out a way of doing so. Our ancestors weren't stupid, they may not have known all of the things that we do now, but they weren't stupid. Humans have always been very good at figuring ways of killing their fellow human and we've been just as good at protecting ourselves.
We had at least 2 examples of plate armor that cover all parts of the body including difficult part of the joints like the back of the knee, inner elbow joints and shoulder joints. Search Giuliano de Medici armor. This and 1 other, both in Musée de l’Armée, Paris, covered even more than Henry VIII foot combat armor.
0:24 Oh yeah! So beautiful!
damn! nice new armor!
I think the title is a misnomer. Gaps implied that unarmored area is a must, but we all know that mail could pretty much eliminate any gaps and articulated plates could be used to coveer inner part of joints.
Maybe it should be called "Why Medieval Plate Armour NEEDS less armored parts" which would be a good way to talk about how the thickness of plate armor and ring sizes and thickness in a mail hauberk wasn't uniform.
That video explains a lot of things for us noobs. Thanks, Matt. But one more question: How does heavy armor work in a formation? Because I'm guessing here that formation is meant more for those folks using spears and polearms without the need of much armor because the formation simply compensates for it. In the case of knights, as you said, they were not always on top of horses and such. So, in case of heavy armored footsoldiers, would they get in a formation at all?
Pikers often wore considerable armor. Raimond de Fourquevaux, or whoever actually wrote that 1548 military treatise, recommended three-quarters harness with a helmet with a sight almost covered & mail hose for pikers. That's a head-to-toe coverage. Of course, the author was a captain fantasizing about his ideal army; he didn't have bear the weight of such armor on campaign. I don't know that any pikers went quite as far as Fourquevaux wanted, but three-quarters harness (armor down to the knee) was reasonably common for at least some pikers based on other treatises & artwork. Heavy infantry in the front ranks always or almost always wore a significant amount of armor. 15th-century Swiss chronicles show some infantry in full harness, with even the lower legs covered.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Thanks for the explanations. Do you know if there's any difference between light armored formations and the heavy ones? I have the feeling that heavily armored formations were meant to be more loose in the ranks between troops, perhaps, because given the extra protection, this kind of allows you more areas that can be hitten which in turn gives you more freedom of action, while having less armor, that means you need to focus the enemy attacks on the specific protected areas, so you do this by having a tight rank, limiting the reach width from those in the opposite side.
@@TheStugbit It seems to have varied a lot, but a number of sources say combat between pike formations got extremely tight, to the point that soldiers mainly fought with their daggers. Fourquevaux complained about formations of his day having only the first two or three ranked armored, & the unarmored soldiers behind these first armored ranks weren't worth much. However, we know that Spanish & other armies continued to field considerable numbers of armored pikers through the end of the 16th century & beyond. Sir John Smythe, who knew something of Spanish methods & stressed the important of armor (including gauntlets) for pikers, described two ways pikers could fight their opposing counterparts. One was to open their ranks to have the elbow room to fence at the length of their pikes. The other was to throw themselves headlong into the enemy, with each piker giving a single powerful thrust & lacking the space to pull the pike back for another attack. If this advance failed to break the opposing formation, pikers would throw or drop their pikes & draw their swords & daggers for close combat. Smythe ridiculed the first method of fencing at the length of the pike, but the fact that he criticized it suggest it happened & other sources mention the same or similar styles.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I understand. I'm saying this because I wonder what would happen if an armored knight had to fight two enemies at once. Because I understand what Matt says that hitting the weak spots of armor is very difficult for the attacker. But once you have to face two opponents at once, that reality might change. And, in battles, once the formation is lost, I think there is this possibility of fighting two opponents at once. I wonder if having heavy armor on such circumstance would still be better because it reduces your mobility. So, having light armor in this situation could allow you to run from the combat, reaching support and trying to stand in formation once again. But as I understand from what you said, the weapons on such period are so powerful that they don't give the light armored much chance, so they might have been wiped out before even the formation looses, I don't know.
What's worth noting is that knights in full armor weren't dumb. They were likely the most experienced fighters in their era and they KNOW about the gaps and weaknesses in their armor and they would train to not get hit tere and protect these spaces.
When I saw the thumbnail for this, my first thought?
ruclips.net/video/mwfJuWZuIE0/видео.html
Pretty good album.
As you've said over the years on this matter, trade off. That was the first place my head went. You configure it for the job at hand.
That latter part was new to me. A way I hadn't seen it, explained to me. I didn't seem to think it was so modular in that context. How you would be dressed up for infantry fighting against say, fighting on horse back. I previously thought it was customised and specific to the suit, purpose it was worn for. You would have your suit for the tournament, for being on the battlefield and just maybe for cavalry too. You tried to wear it for the right context. If reality permitted.
Glad to have learned something.
Gotta choose your individual pros and cons. 👍
As for people who don't pull down their visor, Henry VIII comes to mind.
👍
Wrapping shots to the back of the thighs are very possible. I've had such bruises. But, yeah, takes some skill and is a risk making such shots.
Bill unit says Hi
I'm not disagreeing at all but I still feel like back of leg armor is crazy. Every pole-arm has some way of very easily exploiting it, it seems like that's almost the entire point of bills and false edges on curvaceous swords
In short if you wanna protect yourself more from one tging you eill be less protected from other things. More protectuon against weapons equals less protection against the elements and breathing
Was it possible to use shields just to increase their own protection? Even in that period? Despite having full plate armour? Was it even a thing? Novice questions again, but I've studied physics so...😁 Definitely not a expert in anything medieval. And I do apologise if my questions are a bit lame, but I'm really curious about it.
You are encased in an almost full suit of hardened steel plate...why even waste time on a shield when you can now focus on maximizing your offense with a battlefield weapon used in two hands ? You don't even have to actively block strikes with it(besides the most powerful blows from other heavy weapons) you can just take hits on the plates and spin to win with your own pain dealing appliance x)
Yes indeed they sometimes still used shields with full plate armour - especially in sieges and against massed archery.
@@vedymin1 I would just assume that maybe they were some knights who would much prefer to sing their tales of great valor by themselves rather than been just part of it.
@@scholagladiatoria A thank you! Could that subject be part of a next video perhaps?
@@TheAncientAstronomer pretty sure he already made an video on that topic.
Imagine if you were a guy with a spear or a rusted sword with just a gambeson and a mail hood with poor or no training seeing a wall of steel coming in your direction with religious intent.
its good armor
Hope it isnt as odd question as it sounds: Are there any helmets with... Ear holes? Those plates must hinder hearing a lot!
There are a lot of 17th century zischagges with holes in their cheek pieces in particular, yes. Whether they are actually ear holes is debatable since they are, in essence, open helmets anyway, so the sound waves aren't completely obstructed.
There were ancient Greek and Roman helmets with openings for the ears. I've seen 16th and 17th century helmets with some small holes by the ears in the Swedish Royal Armoury, some helmets had no holes. Gustav Vasa had a helmet from ~1540 with 7 small holes on both sides of the helmet.
Roman Empire helmets are probably the most famous example of a helmets with ear holes.
Thank you all for answers!