sadly the integral mail skirt that is meant to hang off the leather you see on the lowest lame of that fauld was off for repair. so we used what was to hand.
@@americohagim1131 It was largely used in Southeast Asia. Japan, India and China mainly. Although it seems Chinese and mongolian troops would usually forgo chainmail in favor of just Lamellar and padded silk jackets for the joints, much like a Gambeson. Chainmail was rare in China because they liked to arm their armies cost effectively and chainmail is incredibly time consuming to make vs its effectiveness in their situation. Its an imperialist mindset. You use the kit provided by the emperor or your lord and make it work. When you do see chainmail, its usually worn by somebody with money. Be it a Samurai, Chinese nobleman, Indian troops (but that's usually butted mail) or the professional Man At Arms/Mercenary of the late medieval and early Renaissance periods.
Its funny how we have reinvented body armor in the modern days, just as they did medieval times. Starting with Kevlar soft armor, like chain mail and now steel and ceramic plates, like the hard armor of old.
It's true, but I think the surviveability is less. Depending on range and were you're hit, and the caliber...Level III Steel will shatter a round into your soft bits which is potentially more dangerous but holds up better than Kevlar and ceramic which are done if they absorb the round but not before knocking you on your ass.
Depends on the kind of Bascinet in question. Great Bascinets had these kinds of large visors on them that restricted vision, but earlier Bascinets (pre-15th century) were open-faced, basically giving no restrictions at all. And as a bonus: you wore a Bascinet underneath a Great Helm, so you could actually remove it and not loss 100% protection.
Good short primer. You notice it's a few years old, a bit of the info is out of date or condensed too much. But overall, good to see. I'll just never get reenactors and living history people that carry sharp swords but don't wear maille or maille voiders where you'd need them. I'm sure a lot of men at arms forwent them on their legs and took a risk for mobility's sake. But on your upper body? Nah, those armpits are far too juicy of a target.
The second guy talking was *way more honest than the first.* He actually mentions the limitations of movement in armor and the encumbrance that the first guy *denies.*
Well yes, there will be limitations but none in movements required for combat (you can still do somersaults in armour, which isn't required in combat at all). Where armour usually restricts movement is where you'd get injured, like it prevents your knee from turning out or your elbows being broken and facing the other way.
@@afunnyman You can't make armour that doesn't restrict, since regular clothes also restrict movement. It's always a choice between mobility and protection. But well made custom plate armour is so clever, that most movement penalties are easily ignored. However even if your movement isn't much restricted the weight does affect the movement since you need more effort to accelerate and decelerate your body since it now weighs more. Simple physics. But you cannot have armour without penalties. Unless it's some sort of sci-fi force screen or something, but then it isn't really armour anymore in my book.
@@afunnyman I'm guessing you're saying that there shouldn't be any crippling limitations to movement. That does sound the best so let's pretend that was what you're saying :P
Thank you, very informative. I really liked the personal description at the end really put me in the suit working with the kit. It's improbable like most I'll ever get to try on a full suit but I could imagine the moral of the Knight and the general Man at Arms of that period.
I'm halfway though amassing my own set of 14th century plate armour, I can move just fine in it without feeling encumbered, although I do really notice the difference once I take it off.
Don´t listen to alexandros. That´s bullshit. Vision was so utterly unusable that people often removed the visor when they were not facing large amounts of arrows. That´s why they got shot or stabbed in the face then and we can read about it in the historical records now.
And the note about heavier weapon isnt true. A good war hammer would weigh about as much as a sword. Its the concentration of the mass thats important. You dont want to lumber around with a great unwieldly piece of steel and WISH for a good hit.
@@ArsenioGarate yea. A good place to go is armstreet. They have a wide selection of not only gambisons and arming dublets, but beautiful looking armour. I would reccomend the paladin set myself, with its awesome etchings. Cheers my friend.
Even when the dude said “riveted” and this-I think-is just a representation to the common people of how a warrior done his amour. Don’t need to be elitist here.
0:57 That is butted maille, and actually you can tear those with your hands, they suck. Real medieval maille had not just riveted pieces, but also were more complex than the one shown here. That "armor" wouldn't protect you from anything. 2:07 Those "wings" can be found on most plate armour, and the polish liked them very much, that's not english exclusive. Also, don't put gold on your fighting armour, that's completely bullshit. The decorated armors were used like fashionable clothing, and for show off purposes, not to actually fight in them. 2:59 No, that messes up your vision, the ones that have good vision are those with lot's of little circular holes in the exe area, the straight line is for extra protection against thrusts. The ability to breath in that is probably not that good, most knights often flipped up their visors just to get some fresh air inside. those holes just there for some extend of breathing, so you don't actually lose conciousness wearing it. 3:27 Actually, that visor has better vision due to the bigger gap. 3:48 If your gauntlet let's that much of movement, then it means that the plates are thin, and won't protect your hand very much. Also, where is your gambeson, or other padding? Without that, you have much less protection against blunt attacks.
Simon bastin What kind of slashes? Maybe a dagger, or other small weapons with small weight, but a full fledged sword, axe, or even a big headed spear slash can tear it to shreds. And as I said before, if you are in good strength, you can tear it with your hands.
That sounds like youre a fullcontact fighter ^^ A knight of around 1400 doesnt wear thick padding. And, believe me, gold and decoration were worn in battle. With absolute certainty
Blank- blade Why wouldn't they wear thick padding? It gives you more protection against blunt force, and makes the armor more comfortable. And why would you wear decorated armor in battle? Those armors weren't for show, they expected them to be hit multiple times during battle. Given it's durability, the plate-armored knights were to charge into the thick of enemy lines and cut their way in, so any decoration, especially golden elaboration, would come off after battle, meaning it's wasted money. Even if they fucking rich, nobody can afford that. They made elaborate armor to show off their wealth, but not to destroy it, no smith would make an armor if his hard work just gets ruined. It's like buying a ferrari and then after you showed it to your friends, you wreck it the next day.
I'm certainly no medieval expert, yet I am an enthusiast. Having said that, I'm fairly certain you would never use a maille aventail or collar in combination with any great helm. The single purpose of the great helm was more protection than the maille around the neck for reduced mobility.
Its not like armor was always of a uniform style. Yes, we have examples that seem to be prevalent, but there were plenty of outliers within an armor style. After all: A knight had his armor commissioned and made to his liking.
DarkEternal6 No, you would not be surprised. -.- These slits are tiny and, (and this bit is important!) they are fery far away from your eyes. You don´t see anything at all downward. I have worn helmets like that and you stumble a lot in these things. You definitely do NOT have "good vision" in those. Definitely. No surprises there.
It's kinda funny how the first guy say it doesn't feel heavy at all, then the second say it feels heavy. But second guy is really spot on. While the first does have good points. Like how armour is always a choice between protection and mobility. You can get 100% protective armour. Think 1dm thick steel plates which encase you in metal. You cannot be harmed. You also cannot do anything. You are useless. But if you go for all mobility, great, you can move and dodge. But since even clothes restrict your movement you are now naked. And you don't want to be naked when enemies want you dead. So the armourers worked on tricks to make armour more protective while sacrificing as little mobility as possible. The late medieval plate armours were magnificent protective suits with many ingenious designs. It took rifles going supersonic before they could reliably go through plate armour. But plate armour was and still is expensive. And while you could afford 1 guy in plate armour. In the end it was more economically sound to get 5 to 10 guys with muskets. Sure the muskets didn't reliably go through plate. But being outnumbered 1 to 10 isn't gonna work in the end.
it's good for fighting, especially in that configuration, sure I wouldn't wear it in everyday life, but then again in everyday life I do not face constant arrowstorms, nor do I face cavalry charging at me with lances backed with half a ton of flesh and steel.
The only body part not protected seems to be the place where the sun don't shine. That makes it an obvious target. I think I'd rather fight without a helmet and risk having my head cut off rather than taking the risk of having sharp objects shoved up the arse.
I wouldn't recommend it. Your unarmored bottom is a very, very unlikely target for anyone to aim for. And unless you have laid down and spread your legs, they won't bother to even try. From the evidence we have on injuries sustained in medieval combat, from Visby and Towton; the head, arms, and legs, were all very common targets. That's the place people aimed their weapons, they weren't trying to hit a soldier's ass. And remember, you're fighting in a formation so your buddies are covering your ass, literally! haha
What kind of evidence do we have? Is it from paintings or from grave digging? Because judging from medieval paintings there are also evidence that we fought human size killer rabbits. And judging from bone damage there shouldn't really be any as long as the object doesn't scrape along the inside of the spine. Wearing full armour probably limits the movement and vision quite a bit so the risk of stumbling to the ground seems very high. Perhaps there was a gentleman rule amongst the Brittish not to target others arses but its not very likely considering what they did to the legendary Viking warrior at Stanford Bridge who wasn't even wearing armour. He certainly got his private parts targeted from below the bridge by a long sharp spear.
Dan Fors Grave digging, of course. I personally try to avoid citing manuscripts because as you mentioned they are dubious at times. Though to be frank, there is a difference between images meant to be amusing from manuscripts, such as giant killer rabbits and images that were meant to chronicle a story. Such as the looting image. Anywho, I've worn lots of armor before and it really isn't that all that limiting if it is fitted properly and the visor can be raised to give you much better vision and breathing. Visors historically seemed to not have anything holding them down besides friction So raising them wasn't a problem. The type of visor shown in this video can actually be very easily discarded, it's held on through a pin on the side that can be pulled and the visor can be removed. Finally, you mention the account from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle concerning Stamford Bridge, surely it's to be understood that if that happened that that situation isn't at all common. Most battles weren't fought on bridges over running rivers in which you can hop in barrel and float under, haha. EDIT: Now while I don't know of any account from the later middle ages of a knight being stabbed in the ass, I do know of one from an English Lord at Agincourt that got stabbed in the groin.
When during my school days I made a full body armour out of cardboard, bascinet was my helmet. Of course it was not exact replica but wision was prety good. I mean it was very limited, but I think that it would have been enought for fighting one oponent. I was not able to see thing higher, above me and lower, near the ground also it was difficult to breath. Doing cardio when you don't get enough oxygen must have been hard
Wait what? The first helmet he showed was mainly for use against archer fire and you can't see shit in it. Thats why knights usually put their visor up in melee combat, so they could actually still see the enemy.
+Benny McAllister It's the thruth, altough, they didn't put the visor up all times, but for brief periods, just to have some vague idea where the enemies are, and to catch some breath, because the air becomes thick very quickly in there.
Benny McAllister Depends on the period, location and desing. Most full helmets have terrible visibility inside, it's not a coincidence that you can put the visor up, they desinged that feature for a reason.
Foolishness is strong in this one... yeah mate, you can see 360° in that helmet, is obvious! lol It even increases your strenght and stamina to Hulk levels. So basically a full armour knight can run and fight the whole day while letally throwing pommels at other fools who wear lighter armour.
Great video, but i think the choreographed 5:02 with the shields after explaining they wouldn't be necessary in full armor, and not showing half swording is a missed opportunity.
the best knights got as in the early modern period, all of the body covered in spring tensioned (what i call) inside faulds which protected the inside of the elbows and back of the knees, henry viiis foot combat armour is a good example, not a single gap and nearly every spot bullet proof when handgun pressed against wasnt used much since under 300 people could afford it by this time who were actually fighting your armour could be better by maille patches being laced between plate or swen into the undergarments as was done the bascinette with aventail still was common as great bascinettes could limit neck mobility a bit, the attached gorget was popular later on in tournament as that limit of nech mobility could stop your spine getting snapped the visor wasnt necessarily a battlefield one, in tournament you would always need face cover but on a battlefield some on horse and even more on foot didnt use visors every time as you may prefer to see better or breathe better even with the helpets specialisation swords with the length shown were used as sidearms, they may more often be thinner at the base and a bit longer, techniques to hold the front of the blade with the left hand inside a gauntlet or mitten to better control the point into the gaps massive swords used as primaries show up as if someone runs past the point of a polearm you cant do as much to them, a massive two handed only sword while worse per hit (on plate) at least it can still hit well when someone is closer (these were often used like polearms too) whilst it does not impede mobility much there are a few downsides more weight so get tired a bit faster even a strong swimmer may struggle to stay afloat mud (you sink way more and cant move as well if wearing spaulders) centre of gravity is usually higher so may be more prone to getting knocked off your feet climbing as you are having to drag an extra 50-70 lb with you
the arms and legs are based on Sir Thurstram de Bower, Tideswell Church, Derbyshire. effigiesandbrasses.com/3554/19996/ The cuirass is based on one in a low countries church, the bascinet is in Musee de Armee in Paris
Bilbo_Gamers let's be honest here. Even perfectly fitted, that's still 30 kilos of weight attached to your body. It doesn't slow you down much, but it will tire you out faster than if you were not wearing it. It's not cumbersome and too heavy to stand up in, but it's not magically going to make the weight disappear if the fit is improved.
It makes it more likely for a strike from the front to hit at a bad angle and slide off without imparting all of its force. The top of the helmet is pointy for the same reason.
Well frankly, it doesn't. It just sits in place above the upper and lower plates on the arm and lets them slide under it
6 лет назад
How big of an advantage does medieval-style armor actually confer when fighting to death with swords? Like, imagine you have two good fighters of the exact same caliber fighting to death, and that one of them has an armor and the other one doesn't. What % of the times will the armored fighter win?
I would say in the ninties of percentage Full plate armor just leaves a lot of body to ignore protecting, chest, back, thighs, stomach, head, not the eyes, but you get my point
I can tell you this, Richard Marsden (a very experienced fencer in longsword, rapier and Polish sabre) got trashed by a complete newbie who wore a full suit of armour except for the helmet. And I do mean trashed, out of 20 bouts Marsden who was out of armour (only the protective equipment needed for fencing) he won 1. Now imagine a full suit of armour, where the armoured fighter is not an armour collector but a trained soldier. The unarmoured one has no chance, maybe once out of 10 000 fights.
Pretty awful odds. Melee combat is, in essence, about using trying to get your sharp bit to your opponent's soft bits. The more soft bits you have to defend against, the more difficult it is to protect yourself. Armor lets you ignore a good portion of attack angles that would otherwise kill an unarmed person. Hence, an *extreme* advantage. Your only disadvantage would be a little less dexterity and endurance, varying depending on what you're wearing specifically, but it's always far outweighed by the benefits
And than.. than imagine how many of these men died. The complexity of equipment, the mass of the resources and TIME needed to make all of this stuff.. *amazing* Humans are amazing :D
How well could one fire a bow in full plate? I know your movement abilities are quite good just I've never worn plate I love the stuff and frankly I love a good wooden bow so naturally I am interested in coming the two together, anyways anyone have experience in This?
East of the Holy Roman Empire it was quite the usual practice for nobility to practice horseback archery (wasn't really utilized on the battlefield since the Mongol invasions but was practiced nonetheless), for those occassions you could skip on the pauldrons.
There's some depictions of it, I believe. Certain plates on some armors would definitely get in the way. Large pauldrons, gauntlets, or even some helmets could probably interfere with drawing and loosing smoothly, but with the right setup it can certainly be done
Saving weight, less components to maintain etc. You may even gain a bit more mobility (like the ability to fully lift your arm if the only voider you can afford is shitty). Even professional soldiers back then did this.
Wearing gambeson under plate is a huge myth mostly perpetuated by people who don't know what they're actually talking about. You'd never, ever wear gambeson under plate armor. It's overbearingly thick material to be wearing under solid plating. You'd just wear what he has here, with varying, but usually relatively low amounts of padding thickness.
Man the amount of “medieval connoisseurs” up in the comment section. I do watch some of the historical channel like Shadiversity or Lyndibeige, and my knowledge is just adequate enough. This video shows a comprehensive and easy to digest way to wear an amour in medieval(renaissance?) time, that’s all. I don’t know about you but a suit of amour is real costly, so of course there’s some mishaps here and there. But most of them are true. And you still drag out the most stupid of argument like “he said riveted mails but show buttered! “? Like what the fuck it’s because the dude is bald and kinda old isn’t it? Is this why you don’t like this video? Or maybe you prefer a hotter dude to do the job?
They're called besagews. That area of the body is difficult to armor, so until larger pauldrons were developed, armorers took the easiest option available and just pointed plates onto the armpits. Simple, doesn't interfere with movement, and supposedly very effective.
You don't wear gambeson or full maille under armor. Okay well Italians sometimes wore haubergeons under their plate for whatever reason but that's it. Still no gambeson.
Literally says white shined armor is better when that is the opposite. Blue steel is what was used for battle not ceremonial armor like half of what he’s wearing.
Bollocks, bluing does very little other than some rust prevention. You can have hardened steel that is not blued in 'the white' and it will be far far better than most blued steel due to hot bluing ruining the temper.
@@jamesj4827 not back then genius. Blued steel then was due to the process of hardening. This was thousand years ago big head. They don’t know everything about steel tempering then,
@@JaguarPriest LOOOL 1000's? Fuck me you just showed how little you know. Blued steel became largely used in the 15thC particularly in Gothic style. Because untill around the 14thC steel was far less common. Fucking 1000 year old plate harness? what a absolute clown
Cust- Ials Its not only ugly, it just looks uncomfortable... Personally, I like hounskulls quite a bit, but it just looks bad since it's connected to the chest piece basically
When did blacksmith craft armor with bulges? A lot of knights, even privileged nobles were smelly and often take a dump or piss without taking off the armor.
"...Maille, riveted together-"
*uses butted Maille*
Every medieval enthusiast: *triggered*
sadly the integral mail skirt that is meant to hang off the leather you see on the lowest lame of that fauld was off for repair. so we used what was to hand.
Question: was butted mail ever used or was it something created by Hollywood??
@@americohagim1131 it was used in japan
@@americohagim1131 It was largely used in Southeast Asia. Japan, India and China mainly. Although it seems Chinese and mongolian troops would usually forgo chainmail in favor of just Lamellar and padded silk jackets for the joints, much like a Gambeson. Chainmail was rare in China because they liked to arm their armies cost effectively and chainmail is incredibly time consuming to make vs its effectiveness in their situation. Its an imperialist mindset. You use the kit provided by the emperor or your lord and make it work. When you do see chainmail, its usually worn by somebody with money. Be it a Samurai, Chinese nobleman, Indian troops (but that's usually butted mail) or the professional Man At Arms/Mercenary of the late medieval and early Renaissance periods.
@@g.o.a.t2202 japan also used riveted mail too
dude... i was looking for some fashion tips on how to wear plate armour in everyday life...
Answer:
Crop it
@@JeremiahWatkins-zv8bn no i need to be historically accurate!!!
Its funny how we have reinvented body armor in the modern days, just as they did medieval times. Starting with Kevlar soft armor, like chain mail and now steel and ceramic plates, like the hard armor of old.
It's true, but I think the surviveability is less. Depending on range and were you're hit, and the caliber...Level III Steel will shatter a round into your soft bits which is potentially more dangerous but holds up better than Kevlar and ceramic which are done if they absorb the round but not before knocking you on your ass.
Bascinets are for visibility like butter knives are for surgery.
Depends on the kind of Bascinet in question. Great Bascinets had these kinds of large visors on them that restricted vision, but earlier Bascinets (pre-15th century) were open-faced, basically giving no restrictions at all. And as a bonus: you wore a Bascinet underneath a Great Helm, so you could actually remove it and not loss 100% protection.
Uh... have you considered open faced bascinets?
A hounskull?
TheBeastWithin But that would expose the face to attack. Kind of the reason the visor was added.
Yes, but not everyone preferred visored bascinets. And peasants would have visorless bascinets anyways.
I like how the helmet looks like it's smiling.
Step 1: Put it on
Step 2: done
Step 3: take Jerusalem
Anachronistic armour
Step 4: Lose
Step 4: Fogot to wear bulletproof vest
Step 5: Heaven
Step 4: get raided by scandinavians
The armour wasn’t created in the crusaders by the way the armour what he put on was made in the 14th and early 15th century’s
Good short primer. You notice it's a few years old, a bit of the info is out of date or condensed too much. But overall, good to see.
I'll just never get reenactors and living history people that carry sharp swords but don't wear maille or maille voiders where you'd need them. I'm sure a lot of men at arms forwent them on their legs and took a risk for mobility's sake. But on your upper body? Nah, those armpits are far too juicy of a target.
i love the fact he says that the maille was riveted ( which of course historically it was) and the maille he's wearing is quite clearly butted ;-P
I was thinking the same thing, lol
Bascinet = Good Vision XD
I've got one myself, you can see almost nothing
compared to other helmets its pretty good. Still utter crap though. Oh god nvrrmind i just saw the helmet he decided to pull out.....
Was the helmet made specially for you?
SanDiscus I hear you lol my hounskull has 7mm eyeslits it's like looking through a coin slot
SanDiscus i recommend a great helm
I'll stick to my barbute thank you very much lmao
The second guy talking was *way more honest than the first.* He actually mentions the limitations of movement in armor and the encumbrance that the first guy *denies.*
Because there shouldn't be any.
Well yes, there will be limitations but none in movements required for combat (you can still do somersaults in armour, which isn't required in combat at all). Where armour usually restricts movement is where you'd get injured, like it prevents your knee from turning out or your elbows being broken and facing the other way.
@@afunnyman You can't make armour that doesn't restrict, since regular clothes also restrict movement.
It's always a choice between mobility and protection.
But well made custom plate armour is so clever, that most movement penalties are easily ignored.
However even if your movement isn't much restricted the weight does affect the movement since you need more effort to accelerate and decelerate your body since it now weighs more. Simple physics.
But you cannot have armour without penalties. Unless it's some sort of sci-fi force screen or something, but then it isn't really armour anymore in my book.
@@Klomster88 I have no idea what I was trying to say, and probably agree with you, come 5 years later.
@@afunnyman I'm guessing you're saying that there shouldn't be any crippling limitations to movement. That does sound the best so let's pretend that was what you're saying :P
Thank you, very informative. I really liked the personal description at the end really put me in the suit working with the kit. It's improbable like most I'll ever get to try on a full suit but I could imagine the moral of the Knight and the general Man at Arms of that period.
I'm halfway though amassing my own set of 14th century plate armour, I can move just fine in it without feeling encumbered, although I do really notice the difference once I take it off.
The mobility of C3PO and the same footwork make a great Knight.
3:00 "good vision"
+Digital Galaxy well you only need to see infront of you and you can see from the holes too
+Alexandros grivas Only in duels. But even then strikes from the side will he difficult to see.
Digital Galaxy well most fights where in formations so you just needed to see infront of you
+Alexandros grivas Oh. Okey.
Don´t listen to alexandros. That´s bullshit.
Vision was so utterly unusable that people often removed the visor when they were not facing large amounts of arrows. That´s why they got shot or stabbed in the face then and we can read about it in the historical records now.
I can imagine how rich one needs to be to custom this kind of armor to go shopping in the battlefield.
And the note about heavier weapon isnt true. A good war hammer would weigh about as much as a sword. Its the concentration of the mass thats important. You dont want to lumber around with a great unwieldly piece of steel and WISH for a good hit.
"Good vision"
Proceeds to show a pair of incredibly thin eye slits.
*laughs
same size as the originals, why change them?
Dude, it actually has good vision
RUclips commenters daring to oppose Velkan, I see
@@sirpuffball6366 What is so special about his channel?
@@sirpuffball6366 not everyone can be as enlightened as us
No Gambeson huh? Interesting, I've been looking for an alternate solution to gambeson replacement
Try an arming doublet. They are good
@@quereakwer8135 thanks for the tip! Good alternative and never heard or read about it. Thanks!
@@ArsenioGarate yea. A good place to go is armstreet. They have a wide selection of not only gambisons and arming dublets, but beautiful looking armour. I would reccomend the paladin set myself, with its awesome etchings. Cheers my friend.
@@quereakwer8135 will totally check it out! Thanks!
@@ArsenioGarate no problem. It is a little pricey tho.
butted maille.....
[Triggered]
Ikr XD
Even when the dude said “riveted” and this-I think-is just a representation to the common people of how a warrior done his amour. Don’t need to be elitist here.
0:57 That is butted maille, and actually you can tear those with your hands, they suck. Real medieval maille had not just riveted pieces, but also were more complex than the one shown here. That "armor" wouldn't protect you from anything. 2:07 Those "wings" can be found on most plate armour, and the polish liked them very much, that's not english exclusive. Also, don't put gold on your fighting armour, that's completely bullshit. The decorated armors were used like fashionable clothing, and for show off purposes, not to actually fight in them. 2:59 No, that messes up your vision, the ones that have good vision are those with lot's of little circular holes in the exe area, the straight line is for extra protection against thrusts. The ability to breath in that is probably not that good, most knights often flipped up their visors just to get some fresh air inside. those holes just there for some extend of breathing, so you don't actually lose conciousness wearing it. 3:27 Actually, that visor has better vision due to the bigger gap. 3:48 If your gauntlet let's that much of movement, then it means that the plates are thin, and won't protect your hand very much. Also, where is your gambeson, or other padding? Without that, you have much less protection against blunt attacks.
This. They would protect from some slashes but not way they would resist any kind of piercing. Should of called it butted maille not riveted.
Simon bastin What kind of slashes? Maybe a dagger, or other small weapons with small weight, but a full fledged sword, axe, or even a big headed spear slash can tear it to shreds. And as I said before, if you are in good strength, you can tear it with your hands.
+Máté Kovács Yes I meant daggers and light weapons. Not axes haha.
That sounds like youre a fullcontact fighter ^^
A knight of around 1400 doesnt wear thick padding. And, believe me, gold and decoration were worn in battle. With absolute certainty
Blank- blade Why wouldn't they wear thick padding? It gives you more protection against blunt force, and makes the armor more comfortable. And why would you wear decorated armor in battle? Those armors weren't for show, they expected them to be hit multiple times during battle. Given it's durability, the plate-armored knights were to charge into the thick of enemy lines and cut their way in, so any decoration, especially golden elaboration, would come off after battle, meaning it's wasted money. Even if they fucking rich, nobody can afford that. They made elaborate armor to show off their wealth, but not to destroy it, no smith would make an armor if his hard work just gets ruined. It's like buying a ferrari and then after you showed it to your friends, you wreck it the next day.
Put the armour on dude!!!...
I'm certainly no medieval expert, yet I am an enthusiast. Having said that, I'm fairly certain you would never use a maille aventail or collar in combination with any great helm. The single purpose of the great helm was more protection than the maille around the neck for reduced mobility.
To be frank, I've never even seen a great bascinet like that. Solid kit overall but that's a funky helmet
Its not like armor was always of a uniform style. Yes, we have examples that seem to be prevalent, but there were plenty of outliers within an armor style. After all: A knight had his armor commissioned and made to his liking.
2:58 "good vision" yeah sure buddy whatever you say
DarkEternal6 No, you would not be surprised. -.-
These slits are tiny and, (and this bit is important!) they are fery far away from your eyes. You don´t see anything at all downward. I have worn helmets like that and you stumble a lot in these things. You definitely do NOT have "good vision" in those. Definitely. No surprises there.
Step 1: you put it on.
Step 2: you wear it.
done.
I thought this was a kingdome come video...
Still worth it.
It's kinda funny how the first guy say it doesn't feel heavy at all, then the second say it feels heavy.
But second guy is really spot on. While the first does have good points. Like how armour is always a choice between protection and mobility.
You can get 100% protective armour. Think 1dm thick steel plates which encase you in metal. You cannot be harmed.
You also cannot do anything. You are useless.
But if you go for all mobility, great, you can move and dodge. But since even clothes restrict your movement you are now naked. And you don't want to be naked when enemies want you dead.
So the armourers worked on tricks to make armour more protective while sacrificing as little mobility as possible. The late medieval plate armours were magnificent protective suits with many ingenious designs.
It took rifles going supersonic before they could reliably go through plate armour. But plate armour was and still is expensive.
And while you could afford 1 guy in plate armour. In the end it was more economically sound to get 5 to 10 guys with muskets.
Sure the muskets didn't reliably go through plate. But being outnumbered 1 to 10 isn't gonna work in the end.
The vision in a bascinet is not great tho......
it's good for fighting, especially in that configuration, sure I wouldn't wear it in everyday life, but then again in everyday life I do not face constant arrowstorms, nor do I face cavalry charging at me with lances backed with half a ton of flesh and steel.
The only body part not protected seems to be the place where the sun don't shine. That makes it an obvious target. I think I'd rather fight without a helmet and risk having my head cut off rather than taking the risk of having sharp objects shoved up the arse.
I wouldn't recommend it. Your unarmored bottom is a very, very unlikely target for anyone to aim for. And unless you have laid down and spread your legs, they won't bother to even try. From the evidence we have on injuries sustained in medieval combat, from Visby and Towton; the head, arms, and legs, were all very common targets. That's the place people aimed their weapons, they weren't trying to hit a soldier's ass. And remember, you're fighting in a formation so your buddies are covering your ass, literally! haha
What kind of evidence do we have? Is it from paintings or from grave digging? Because judging from medieval paintings there are also evidence that we fought human size killer rabbits.
And judging from bone damage there shouldn't really be any as long as the object doesn't scrape along the inside of the spine.
Wearing full armour probably limits the movement and vision quite a bit so the risk of stumbling to the ground seems very high.
Perhaps there was a gentleman rule amongst the Brittish not to target others arses but its not very likely considering what they did to the legendary Viking warrior at Stanford Bridge who wasn't even wearing armour. He certainly got his private parts targeted from below the bridge by a long sharp spear.
Dan Fors Grave digging, of course. I personally try to avoid citing manuscripts because as you mentioned they are dubious at times. Though to be frank, there is a difference between images meant to be amusing from manuscripts, such as giant killer rabbits and images that were meant to chronicle a story. Such as the looting image.
Anywho, I've worn lots of armor before and it really isn't that all that limiting if it is fitted properly and the visor can be raised to give you much better vision and breathing. Visors historically seemed to not have anything holding them down besides friction So raising them wasn't a problem. The type of visor shown in this video can actually be very easily discarded, it's held on through a pin on the side that can be pulled and the visor can be removed. Finally, you mention the account from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle concerning Stamford Bridge, surely it's to be understood that if that happened that that situation isn't at all common. Most battles weren't fought on bridges over running rivers in which you can hop in barrel and float under, haha.
EDIT: Now while I don't know of any account from the later middle ages of a knight being stabbed in the ass, I do know of one from an English Lord at Agincourt that got stabbed in the groin.
*****
Did he wear armor?
MrStig691 a
When during my school days I made a full body armour out of cardboard, bascinet was my helmet. Of course it was not exact replica but wision was prety good. I mean it was very limited, but I think that it would have been enought for fighting one oponent. I was not able to see thing higher, above me and lower, near the ground also it was difficult to breath. Doing cardio when you don't get enough oxygen must have been hard
BUTTED MAIL SKIRT!?
maybe its just buged he explained riveted mail .
see above. the usual bit was off that cuirass for repair.
Totally awesome!!! I want my own armor one day.
Wait what? The first helmet he showed was mainly for use against archer fire and you can't see shit in it. Thats why knights usually put their visor up in melee combat, so they could actually still see the enemy.
No, the bascinet is dessigned for protection against arrows and so the eyelids are hard to see trough.
+Benny McAllister It's the thruth, altough, they didn't put the visor up all times, but for brief periods, just to have some vague idea where the enemies are, and to catch some breath, because the air becomes thick very quickly in there.
Benny McAllister Depends on the period, location and desing. Most full helmets have terrible visibility inside, it's not a coincidence that you can put the visor up, they desinged that feature for a reason.
Benny McAllister - , -" Dude, do you want me to show you bascinets that SERIOUSLY render your vision, or give up fighting against LOGIC here?
Foolishness is strong in this one... yeah mate, you can see 360° in that helmet, is obvious! lol It even increases your strenght and stamina to Hulk levels. So basically a full armour knight can run and fight the whole day while letally throwing pommels at other fools who wear lighter armour.
'How to wear Plate Armor'
With your body? ._____.
It's surprising complicated
@@zaidhernandez4601 exactly that’s why if you were a knight you would have someone put it on for you.
Great video. The fauld lames are much more flexible than I first thought
Great video, but i think the choreographed 5:02 with the shields after explaining they wouldn't be necessary in full armor, and not showing half swording is a missed opportunity.
Good visibility...
5:03 HOLY SHITE THAT SWORD AND SHIELD FENCING IS BLOODY BRILLIANT. why cant this shite be in movies?!?
the best knights got as in the early modern period, all of the body covered in spring tensioned (what i call) inside faulds which protected the inside of the elbows and back of the knees, henry viiis foot combat armour is a good example, not a single gap and nearly every spot bullet proof when handgun pressed against
wasnt used much since under 300 people could afford it by this time who were actually fighting
your armour could be better by maille patches being laced between plate or swen into the undergarments as was done
the bascinette with aventail still was common as great bascinettes could limit neck mobility a bit, the attached gorget was popular later on in tournament as that limit of nech mobility could stop your spine getting snapped
the visor wasnt necessarily a battlefield one, in tournament you would always need face cover but on a battlefield some on horse and even more on foot didnt use visors every time as you may prefer to see better or breathe better even with the helpets specialisation
swords with the length shown were used as sidearms, they may more often be thinner at the base and a bit longer, techniques to hold the front of the blade with the left hand inside a gauntlet or mitten to better control the point into the gaps
massive swords used as primaries show up as if someone runs past the point of a polearm you cant do as much to them, a massive two handed only sword while worse per hit (on plate) at least it can still hit well when someone is closer (these were often used like polearms too)
whilst it does not impede mobility much there are a few downsides
more weight so get tired a bit faster
even a strong swimmer may struggle to stay afloat
mud (you sink way more and cant move as well if wearing spaulders)
centre of gravity is usually higher so may be more prone to getting knocked off your feet
climbing as you are having to drag an extra 50-70 lb with you
No surcoat? How do you distinguish between friends or foes?
what effigy is this suit based on? I love it and would love to work on something like this.
the arms and legs are based on Sir Thurstram de Bower, Tideswell Church, Derbyshire. effigiesandbrasses.com/3554/19996/ The cuirass is based on one in a low countries church, the bascinet is in Musee de Armee in Paris
2:59 good vision xD
anyone else noticed the plastic end on some of the laces🤔
I have the exact same front plate
by the miniature i thought it was KCD lol, nice video
>pigface
>good vision
wew lad.
Wait a minute, where's your gambeson & haubert?
He has a pourpoint
they were in use earlier, he is wearing a late XIV century armour :)
to mid XVth century *
@@hacheurdepoulet this is a early 15th century suit of armor.
I hate that Shad keeps spreading this blatant misinformation...
are there any other helmet designs?
"It's heavy, it's tiring" maybe if your armor isn't fitted correctly
Bilbo_Gamers let's be honest here. Even perfectly fitted, that's still 30 kilos of weight attached to your body. It doesn't slow you down much, but it will tire you out faster than if you were not wearing it. It's not cumbersome and too heavy to stand up in, but it's not magically going to make the weight disappear if the fit is improved.
Have you worn armour before
great vid ! i love it !
greetings from france
why was his shield not even facing the other guy in the fight scene
Frasier and Niles's long lost brother
I'm still having good vision in 2020
no I want so armor, just for fun
Why do dome of the helmets have a 'beak' like a bird design to them? I have always wondered why that was.
It makes it more likely for a strike from the front to hit at a bad angle and slide off without imparting all of its force. The top of the helmet is pointy for the same reason.
the chainmail is not correct it needs to be riveted rings not butted
Can someone explain how a couter bends? It doesn't look like it should bend at all.
Well frankly, it doesn't. It just sits in place above the upper and lower plates on the arm and lets them slide under it
How big of an advantage does medieval-style armor actually confer when fighting to death with swords? Like, imagine you have two good fighters of the exact same caliber fighting to death, and that one of them has an armor and the other one doesn't. What % of the times will the armored fighter win?
I would say in the ninties of percentage
Full plate armor just leaves a lot of body to ignore protecting, chest, back, thighs, stomach, head, not the eyes, but you get my point
I can tell you this, Richard Marsden (a very experienced fencer in longsword, rapier and Polish sabre) got trashed by a complete newbie who wore a full suit of armour except for the helmet. And I do mean trashed, out of 20 bouts Marsden who was out of armour (only the protective equipment needed for fencing) he won 1.
Now imagine a full suit of armour, where the armoured fighter is not an armour collector but a trained soldier. The unarmoured one has no chance, maybe once out of 10 000 fights.
@@RockerMarcee96 link plz problem finding it
Pretty awful odds. Melee combat is, in essence, about using trying to get your sharp bit to your opponent's soft bits. The more soft bits you have to defend against, the more difficult it is to protect yourself. Armor lets you ignore a good portion of attack angles that would otherwise kill an unarmed person. Hence, an *extreme* advantage. Your only disadvantage would be a little less dexterity and endurance, varying depending on what you're wearing specifically, but it's always far outweighed by the benefits
100%
And than.. than imagine how many of these men died. The complexity of equipment, the mass of the resources and TIME needed to make all of this stuff.. *amazing* Humans are amazing :D
Is that Raglan Castle behind you?
Porchester, Hampshire
Nice video!
But will the armor stop a 5.56 Armor Piercing Round coming from an AR15??
Hell no.
But what if u drop the gun in the mud no more gun
How well could one fire a bow in full plate? I know your movement abilities are quite good just I've never worn plate I love the stuff and frankly I love a good wooden bow so naturally I am interested in coming the two together, anyways anyone have experience in This?
East of the Holy Roman Empire it was quite the usual practice for nobility to practice horseback archery (wasn't really utilized on the battlefield since the Mongol invasions but was practiced nonetheless), for those occassions you could skip on the pauldrons.
You pretty much can't, the various armour projections get in the way, plus you are in gauntlets.
Longbowmen didn’t wear full plate. They were foot soldiers.
There's some depictions of it, I believe. Certain plates on some armors would definitely get in the way. Large pauldrons, gauntlets, or even some helmets could probably interfere with drawing and loosing smoothly, but with the right setup it can certainly be done
Why so many people don't put mail at least in the gaps, i always see only a gambeson on the arm joints, its a great target
Saving weight, less components to maintain etc. You may even gain a bit more mobility (like the ability to fully lift your arm if the only voider you can afford is shitty). Even professional soldiers back then did this.
You would have mail voiders.
You need to be safe you almost cut the guy with yore sword when
He was putting yore leg armor on
I initially thought that the microphone was a puff of extremely dense chesthair.
I feel cheated.
This helmet actually provides good vision. Stop joking about the eyeslits , guys.
where is the gambeson for anti blunt force gear
Wearing gambeson under plate is a huge myth mostly perpetuated by people who don't know what they're actually talking about. You'd never, ever wear gambeson under plate armor. It's overbearingly thick material to be wearing under solid plating. You'd just wear what he has here, with varying, but usually relatively low amounts of padding thickness.
What about taking a leak?
a servant helps you out.... The hose are split so its easy to take a leak.
It's up to you, you wanna see your life paat your eyes you you don't wanna see anything at all?
You guys are cool ..
Yes this is cool!
Como eles faziam para urinar e defecar com toda aquela armadura?
Isn't that cuirass a little long?
Not... terribly. It does appear to be a tiny bit on the long side but he could definitely just be built different.
That's a pretty bascinet you have!
Would I be protected from a bear attack?
🤣😂 4:31 looks like a freaking bird dancing . Or some kind of human-chicken . Bagbagbgaaaaaag 🐔🐔🐔
I think I’m gonna go broke if I keep buying this armor
Good vision? I cant imagine being able to see ANY overhead blows.
Man the amount of “medieval connoisseurs” up in the comment section. I do watch some of the historical channel like Shadiversity or Lyndibeige, and my knowledge is just adequate enough. This video shows a comprehensive and easy to digest way to wear an amour in medieval(renaissance?) time, that’s all. I don’t know about you but a suit of amour is real costly, so of course there’s some mishaps here and there. But most of them are true. And you still drag out the most stupid of argument like “he said riveted mails but show buttered! “? Like what the fuck it’s because the dude is bald and kinda old isn’t it? Is this why you don’t like this video? Or maybe you prefer a hotter dude to do the job?
Thanks for the vote of confidence in my baldness :-)
20th & 21st Centuries Medical Centres & Hospitals.
No sword can cut off an arm XD
Great video!
You obviously have no idea on the capabilities of melee weapons
4:32 radar antenna under the armpit？
They're called besagews. That area of the body is difficult to armor, so until larger pauldrons were developed, armorers took the easiest option available and just pointed plates onto the armpits. Simple, doesn't interfere with movement, and supposedly very effective.
I hope this guy doesn’t do re-enactment... because no gambeson or hauberk could be a bit *uncomfortable*
You don't wear gambeson or full maille under armor.
Okay well Italians sometimes wore haubergeons under their plate for whatever reason but that's it. Still no gambeson.
that helmet is stoned as hell
looks more like larp gear to me
Literally says white shined armor is better when that is the opposite. Blue steel is what was used for battle not ceremonial armor like half of what he’s wearing.
Bollocks, bluing does very little other than some rust prevention. You can have hardened steel that is not blued in 'the white' and it will be far far better than most blued steel due to hot bluing ruining the temper.
@@jamesj4827 not back then genius. Blued steel then was due to the process of hardening. This was thousand years ago big head. They don’t know everything about steel tempering then,
@@JaguarPriest LOOOL 1000's? Fuck me you just showed how little you know.
Blued steel became largely used in the 15thC particularly in Gothic style. Because untill around the 14thC steel was far less common. Fucking 1000 year old plate harness? what a absolute clown
good vision. ha!
actually the vision sucks in this helmet
I disagree, I wear a bascinet and while the vision isn't the best, it's certainly not bad.
I disagree, it definitely does its job. It depends or the forger
Hell yeah
Dis dude looks like 3p0 from star wars at 4:30
Yep you said it .Heavy ,Hot and Tirring. !
That helmet though. *Almost throws up*
Cust- Ials Maybe a sallet and gorget (or whatever covers the lower face) There's a reason why I like the 1550's
@@jacka__ajack3558 Yah, that helmet is just ugly.
Cust- Ials Its not only ugly, it just looks uncomfortable... Personally, I like hounskulls quite a bit, but it just looks bad since it's connected to the chest piece basically
@@jacka__ajack3558 Ditto, but I do love the Great helm and the Salet
@@scootch4224(little did they know, the bascinet was more practical then the great helm)
Centuries Ago, Human Body Conditions were very bad indeed!!
"good vision"
You would be surprised how much you need
Well, if I can see your shoulders (in foot combat) I see more than enough.
HOW IS THAT GOOD VISION AT ALL
How Difficult can you imagine life was like Centuries Ago aspecially during the Medievals?!!
Heavy Armoury in hot summers!
21st Century Safety First.
How many people like to dress in armor just to wear everyday at home?
Me...
@@sirpuffball6366 lmfao
My armor weighs 70 pounds
When did blacksmith craft armor with bulges? A lot of knights, even privileged nobles were smelly and often take a dump or piss without taking off the armor.