Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3ln9nxx Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: 7 Days Premium Account 250k credits Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6)
I don't like wrappers as finicky nor lighter configuration as you put it Metatron as it lack protection. Give me a closed gorget or preferably a articulated Gorget which both it sits pinned to the back plate & chest plate. There is no reason to not wear an out-cropping bever with an armet as the slight empty space between the helmet & neck protection gives room to deform on impact while being easier to breath. Edit: 'Barbote' over a ''wrapper'' is what I meant as brain remembered what those specific gorget's are called.
Another point people forget what if your preferred helmet is damaged or in poor condition from prior use? I'd rather use a well conditioned frogmouth helmet on the battle field then an Armet that is damaged or in subpar condition from prior usage. ''Desperate times call for desperate measures'' as the old adage goes. I highly suspect some knights would have used frogmouth helmet in battle simply because it was on hand & any head protection is better then non even with decreased vision- head articulation. What we want & what we get in life are 2 different matters & they rarely align perfectly!
Considering all these terms we have for helmets are just umbrella terms, could it be possible that the frogmouth is just a further development of the armet?
Hi Metatron, the helmets you show, many really remind me of modern motorcycle helmets, (integral), so they didn't really disappear up to today. Just the material is different. Much love!
Thank you for all these details. I have a doubt on the other hand on the way in which you spell "Reneissance" because in French we spell it with an A like this "Renaissance". Is it for a reason to respect phonetics or is there another reason ?
From my experience in armour, the ability to bolt your helm to your cuirass would also give your neck a break, carrying the weight of visored bascinet and associated mail all on your head is quite taxing. Great video!
Wrapper and gorget. With a lance charge and the potential of blunt weapons that regularly dent armor and possibly brake bone lol I'll take the extra protection. Also I'm 6 ft 2 and a crack shot with an M-16 A2, if I can learn to be as good with a long bow or Yumi, the two best places for our side to place me would be as part of the shield wall or in the back as a long range shot with a heavy war bow. Eather way having more armor to prevent a repete of the head and spine injuries I experienced in basic training is much appreciated. From personal experience take the extra, brain and central nervous system damage is not fun and generally both are hard for doctors to find and also at least in my experience only get worse over time without miraculous healing. Fight smarter today, live and be healthy enough to fight a second day. Lol
To the helmet date point - we must remember that all classification is a sinplification, to aid our undetstanding, not an artifact of the real world - and in fact is only possible because of incomplete information. For eg if we had a complete fossil record it would bee impossible to say where a species begins and ends as all would grade into all
i think that people forget that horses are living creatures, they walk and run for you, they naturally avoid obstacles and kick your enemies, you just give them directions. they are impressive and huge creatures that killed a lot of people in battle, even if we now consider them like lovely pets.. which they are of course, but still! the fact that your lower vision is obstructed is not a huge problem on a horse, especially in a heavy charge, when you literally expect to crush and stomp on your enemies with a lance in your hand. right? wanting a very good protection against polearms and lances makes a lot of sense to me. i don't think they would have used a frogmouth for fighting on foot or if they expected a huge amount of melee anyway. for charges? it doesn't seem unreasonable..
Thanks for the shout out! I don't think I could decide to be honest. I've jousted in a frogmouth great bascinet, and an armet, and wear a sallet for everything else. I think the reason there are so many designs and choices when it comes to medieval armour is because there are so many factors to consider. I suppose if I was told I just had to choose one helmet, the armet is the most versatile, especially when you consider visors of exchange...
if i owned FROGMOUTH i would wear it while at walmart and the bank and in the drive through because FROGMOUTH is based and all the women love FROGMOUTH
Regarding the bringing it back idea: Just look at the barbut! Isn't it just a Corinthian helmet? There's plenty of cases where they brought stuff back after someone poked around some ruins. They even did it with laws.
@@nutyyyy That's debatable. There are MANY styles of barbute, and only the most closed ones ("T" or "Y" shaped) that were not the most common ones, resembles corinthian helmets (but, IE, the central ridge, that's typical of the barbute, isn't found on classical helmets).
I think it's more of a case of convergent evolution, barbute strikes me more as a modification of visorless Italian sallet than one based on Corinthian helmet.
I used to think the armet is better by default because it comes later but honestly the frogmouth just resonates better with me now. I mean, it's both derpy and horrifying at the same time, It would be a hit at Halloween parties
I love that you addressed the oddly specific dates used for the development of armor. Even on my own channel, I typically only refer to dates in the form of 100 year periods. Armor styles didnt just switch out like a fashion magazine when the hip new look comes out. There has always been massive overlap in tech.
Just a random thought, but is it actually *that* important for a random member of an army to be able to look around on a battlefield? In the context of Hollywood movie battles where it's just a giant chaotic swirling melee and an attack could come from any direction, the inability to turn one's head would seem like a massive detriment. But real battles usually weren't like that. If your unit maintains its cohesion, the enemy should only be in front of you. If there's an urgent need to be aware of something behind you, chances are that something has gone horribly wrong. Also if only a part of the unit is wearing frogmouths, the ones that aren't can respond to sudden new threats, and perhaps even warn their less responsive mates of a sudden development.
No equipment just disappears. It's why in my study of viking swords, it only really makes sense to look for the date when they were first manufactured in a specific style. We can maybe say 'the style first appeared around date X, and fell out of fashion by date Y,' but they were probably still in use. I mean, in modern situations, we have people in conflicts using weapons from WWI or WWII still, if they need to.
Would be nice to have similar vid on Armet vs Sallet comparison, I know you enjoy your frogmouth a lot but damn I feel like Sallet was a closer competitor to Armet
Interesting! I really appreciate towards the end your point on the possibility that the different helmets were best suited to different jobs and were chosen for such. Someday I'd love to see a video how left-handed people dealt with arms and armor.
Left handed people simply didn't exist in antiquity. In fact, today their presence is largely a myth. Very few original sources even mention them, so clearly they are a fictitious invention of revisionist historians.
To be fair, most weapons of the older world were largely ambidextrous, the only example I can quickly think of which might not have been, might've been a basket-hilt sword, where the basket was specifically shaped to protect the back of the right-hander's sword hand... Most everything else, I'd think could be picked up just as easily by a left-hander 🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@TimParker-Chambers In all sincerity, ambidexterity was sort of the default on every weapon worldwide until the advent of breechloading repeaters with ejecting shells. And, Because Bec De Corbin's are universal...
Didn't know how Richard III died but now I'm going to venture forth the theory that someone removed his helmet during a battle and then proceeded to introduce him to the wondrous world of severe head trauma 😂
My favourite is the close helm type armet with an optional wrapper. On a side note, I'm fond of the German term Stechbart for the wrapper, which would translate to something like stab-beard. A metal beard preventing lances from stabbing you in the face, not a beard to stab someone with, unfortunately ... still. Metalbeard! I also like the simple genius of the close helm with only two shared pivot points. And the symmetry. To me, the "armet"- armet with hinges and pivots appears sort of ... untidy is much too strong an expression, but, y'know ... Additionally, the minute asymmetry of the overlapping cheeks constantly tickles my OCD tendencies and sets me a little on edge😆.
I think if it comes to drawing/painting armor like that, even if iconography shows these types of helmets being used, it could just mean that's the type of armor that the artist was familiar with. Like most artworks, they are based on reality, and since I don't think many painters visited battlefields, it seems to me that they had greater chances to observe the jaust. And when it came to painting, it was like "oh that helmet looks cool - I'll paint it", without a full understanding of neuance. Hope that makes any sense. And it's just my guesses on a subject, from artist perspective, as we won't know for sure.
Remember that a lot of artwork like that was specifically commissioned by the very nobility that was on those battlefields. A certain level of authenticity and fidelity would have been expected. It would be as if you as an artist were commissioned to make a painting about a recent battle, specifically by war veterans. I doubt you’d just paint whatever gear comes to mind.
@@metatronyt But would it be possible that those who commissioned the painting would want to be represented in a way that was most agreeable to their own ego and self image and so may have instructed the painter to use the frogmouth helm because it looks, in your own words, more intimidating? Are there some artists who can be said to have witnessed battles first hand with historical certainty? I know if I was asked to paint something from memory it would be easier with some examples on hand to reference which would probably be provided by those commissioning the work.
@@Ian_Carolan Well, if the frogmouth was indeed seen by them as joust-only, the drawing would look silly to anyone who knew their shit instead of being intimidating, wouldn't it?
I thought of another disadvantage to armets. When the design is made to be as close- and form fitting as possible, the protection against concussive force will probably be decreased. Compare it to a larger helmet that is suspended from the top of your head with more air between the inside of the helmet and your skull, if you get struck on the head the weight of the helmet will absorb a lot of the concussive energy. It might make your helmet move and shift in an uncomfortable way, but it beats getting a fractured skull. With this in mind, I'd feel more safe wearing a frogmouth if going up against an opponent armed with a reinforces club or mace, but less so if wearing an armet.
I've worn both in unmounted melee and honestly they're about the same except the Armet looks cooler 😋 Both are a bit hard to wear they're really tiring I was dripping with sweat both times, the frogmouth was a bit odd because on foot the natural response to being hit so high is to present the crown or brow of your head which is usually the toughest bit of the helm but I barely felt hits coming from below so hits to my jawline skated off too, just had to get into habit of lifting my chin without blinding myself. I think another advantage of the Armet was that it was closer to my face, when you're dashing about in mud with flies buzzing around your head keeping it all out felt necessary, I remember a Jouster telling me that he tilted with a bee in his frogmouth 😄
Great video, I really like Armets. Also thanks about mentioning close helmets and maximillian armour. If you have a knowledge about Greenwich Armour - could you make a video about it? I really like the style of it and would like to hear more about it.
I've noticed that many of the Wagner guys, fighting in Ukraine, have apparently abandoned their body armor, and even their helmets. Presumably, they find that agility outweighs the advantages of armor ... at least in their particular combat arena. The ones I've noticed, do retain their weight-bearing harness for magazines, and they adopt a variety of soft hats. At lot of these guys are engaged in urban warfare, apparently moving on-foot.
Interesting. Is that in actual combat or in control missions (or propaganda)? Usually closer the combat gets, like in urban warfare, more protection you want.
@@santerilaakeristo7305 It's just my own observation from the videos that I've seen, which have been posted by Wagner forces. I guess that some of the soldiers will choose to have the maximum protection. From what I've seen, most casualties result from artillery fire, and the body-armor perhaps is not very effective. I dunno, I'm only speculating. If you look at the close-up videos of trench fighting, you will see many men being killed at close range, by small-arms fire ... despite the fact that they are wearing a full complement of body armor.
Part of it is how long you expect to be in action, and environment. If you are only expecting to fight for a few minutes every few days wearing armor makes sense. Also, are you using night vision? You def need a helmet for that. I would still wear armor and a helmet in urban fighting, it saved many American soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars/occupations. I assume there are lots of snipers in Ukraine, so I would doubly want armor. Fortunately very effective lightweight armor exists, but I am guessing these Wagner mercs don't all have access to it. They probably have to wear hybrid ceramic armor which is heavy. My plates weigh 2 pounds each and will stop any round up to 7.62x57 ap (tungsten core) or 30-06 ap (steel core). My helmet also weighs a little over 2 pounds. For the protection they provide, I think it is worth it. But believe me I would be taking off my plates any time I thought it was safe. Considering how many guys are getting killed by artillery shrapnel over there I am surprised they go without armor entirely. No amount of agility difference made by dropping a few pounds is going to make a difference when an artillery shell explodes in your general vicinity. You better be under cover, or you are getting shredded.
@@rcfokker1630 You can still be killed with armor, getting shot in the upper portion of any limb will bleed you out without medical attention in short order. Also guys aim for the waist or the pit of the throat where almost no one wears rifle rated armor. Up close fighting is different than 100 yards+. The farther away they are, the more likely they will just be aiming center mass.
@@rcfokker1630 Hold on for a second. We were talking about Wagner forces in urban warfare and lack of body armor. You said most of the casualties are from artillery fire, and I agree that’s probably true, but I’m not that sure Ukrainians are willing to shell their own cities that extensively, so casualties there are more likely to be from actual combat. I definitely could be mistaken thought. I think you have seen footage of casualties wearing body armor, proving that people are using it in actual combat, and footage from non-combat situations where people are not wearing it. And like the other guy said you would take your armor of whenever you could. You are tens of kilometres away from frontlines, you are not going to get caught while your pants are down, you probably don’t need you armor on.
Very interesting fact the one about the dates you said in minute 12 to 13. As I say to my pupils people in History didn't go to bed in Medieval era and wake up next morning in Modern ages. Things are part of a process, a change which occurs gradually. With helmets, with models of swords... just as today: even if mobile phones are most common every day still are people who use the old cable phones. Same in the past, technologies didn't appear or dissapear from one day to another, exactly as art styles, politic ideas, phylosopihical theories... Thanks as usual for your videos.
Very informative video; definitely the extensive depictions of the frogmouth in battlefield or on foot duel scenarios have convinced me of the larger picture of it being used outside of jousting. I like that on Dark Souls 2, the game on the background screen, they have a very ornate and beautiful Frogmouth called the Loyce Helm, which is definitely not bolted but it does stay still when you move, so no neck movement there. On dark souls 3 there's Lapp's Helm, which is a more proper frogmouth, which depending on your chest piece of choice, changes to be bolted to the chest, or be a stand alone helm. Very cool stuff.
Good release! I believe that the Frogmouth helmet was not used in the war. Only in tournaments. Usually it weighs a lot, it is impossible to fasten it yourself from behind. Armet ideal knight helmet for war.
I don’t know what’s the best helm but I do know the Metatron is the best when it comes to clapping historical cheeks!!! You’re the greatest man in history Metatron!!!
extra wrapper or no .. well theres things to be said for both situations .. I guess Id choose based on what I was expecting to happen on the day. A raid type situation I might choose less protection because I might want to move fast and be able to react to the unexpected .. a full battle I might sacrifice flexibility if it looked like a long day
Could you make a video on the armor style called Kastenbrust? There is almost no videos on it. I really like your Burgundian knight armor video so it would be cool to see someone talk about the Kastenbrust style especially because you see it on a decent bit of effigies like the ones in Innsbruck. A notable thing about those is just how boxy the breast plates are compared to modern interpretations. Maybe you could shine some light on this almost forgotten style of armor.
I don't think I'd wear either helmet but if I absolutely HAD TO, I'd...probably follow your example and wear what fits the situation the most and what would ensure my survival the best. I kinda like my life. Really tho, I'm not that much of a fighter. I like my weapons and stuff but combat isn't my forte. or conflict in general. I'm pretty timid and shy IRL.
a few videos ago someone commented that metatron content is shifting towards more clickable titles and such and i responded that its most likely not some trend shift but just a part of evolution of the channel and the channel creator trying to not burn himself out, now seeing a "typical" video im pretty sure i was right
There's quite a few helmets that share these broad features, in the ancient world and in the early medieval period. And arguably in the later medieval period as well.
Random funny thought: Were there any style point farming battlefield streakers who would run into the action naked and try to dodge stuff and beat people up barehanded? 1:24 Chickpeas? 🤡 18:15 Funny to consider that today we only like to dehumanize the enemy whereas back then people were dehumanizing themselves, too. (Although maybe we could say that today people do it through actions combined with forced self-unawareness.) P.S.: Would be great if you could get a camera lens into it to show us an approximate visibility. (But it is worth considering that visibility through a small opening improves with moving the eyes closer to it.)
Do you really NEED a helmet to conform closer to the jaw and neck, though? Or would you benefit more from filling in the gaps with more protective padding?
The main advantage is range of motion. Padding and even mail isn't going to protect your throat and neck from everything. This is a weakness of bascinets, and the great bascinet solution removed your ability to move your head around as easily. There are advantages to the more rigid design of the great bascinet though.
Hi Metatron! Regarding the closing mechanism, how do you know medieval Italian armorers had access to such Roman helmets? Not saying that the theory isn't plausible
What i found about medieval iconography and art , it is that it is pretty accurate . What it is a books and paintings is pretty accurate to the time the author lived , expecially if they represnts scenes of medieval life and battle . Yes , some artistic licenses existed but in generai it is pretty accurate . Paintings were treated more like pictures in our days , then something that the artist may dream of . When it came to clothes , armour and weapons or scenes of lifes they are pretty spot on.
I always thought that left side being more armoured compared to right side is due to Jousting and Tournaments. Your opponent will be by your left side. Tournament and "field" amours have plenty of differences.
In war someone trying to lance you would more likely be hitting your left side, this is the origin of the joust and the reason why they lanced on that side In the joust.
@@rileyernst9086 No. when you fighting on a battlefield it is not one on one "joust" or fight. it is Line vs Line, and in that style of fight you have opponents to your left and to your right and they both have equal opportunity to hit you.
Well with a heavy cavalry action you're most likely to clash head on. And lancing across your body is bloody awkward, and lancing across the frontage of the guy next to you is not the best way to make friends. So no you are totally expecting that strike to hit your left side.
I can see Frogmouth as a preferred option for an armored fist charge right into a center of enemy line. As for the other, I mean, I can see a nobleman with a Roman helmet talking to an armorer and talking about what he wants and referring back to the Roman helmet and the armorer borrowing the helmet to study to make the nobleman helmet.
I had been waiting for a video about the armet! For me, the image of an Italian condottiero from the 1460s charging on horseback with his full wrapper armet, is just too fascinating
What about the possibility of a frog mouth being used like a great helm, with an open face basinet or the like underneath. So when they feel they want more visibility and breathing they can take the frog mouth off and still have head protection. I don't see why that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption as they had examples and knowledge of the great helm and bacinet combination. Tournament armor and combat armor are designed and constructed in different ways from each other but are aesthetically similar, so I'd imagine that if you were to hold a frog mouth from one of the illustrations, it would feel completely different from a tournament helm and with a different liner system. Basically a reintroduction and redesign of the Great helm. Or was the great helm ever discontinued in use before the frog mouth gained popularity. Just a thought
I really like the explanation that they had many choices of armour, shields and helmets for a variety of "jobs". Like today, we have many tools that do the same job, the difference being specialisation for a specific situation usually. And I think people in the past had more ingenuity for alot of problem solving, then we do today. I would say there tools for metal work and sowing techniques show that well. Not that we cant do that today... Just that we dont spend enough time testing stuff physically... Unlike Tod, he does alot haha.
Interesting indeed 👍👍👍👍 I think for every-day use, I would probably choose an armet, for that versatility to take a breath, drink, etc, but for something specific like a tourney joust, I would definitely want a frogmouth... With a joust, as mentioned by Don Johnson's character in Django Unchained; all that matters is that the horse can see where it's going... 🙈🙈🙈🙈🤣🤣🤣🤣
I personally like Armet designs and it seems to be a versatile helmet which could be good for foot or horse back. The frogmouth looks amazing but I personally think it has the advantage in joust and cavalry use mostly. I would assume that a mounted knight would face lots of foot infantry and the lower protection on the frogmouth would be an advantage against attacks coming from foot infantry and if they charged other knights the frogmouth would have the advantage just like in a joust. If I were a knight I'd own both and use according to situation 😅
Thank you for making this. I had some questions: What's the problem with having to turn your torso to look around if you have a wrapper or frog mouth? That seems like a minor inconvenience at worst. What's the benefit of a closed helmet opening design over an Armet? You mentioned that taking off Armets are difficult to take off. Why? Would Frogmouths be easier to take off? I also got some ideas I got for the helmets: In your Top 10 (11) Most Effective Helmets video, there was a German variant of the Salat that had an elongated piece on the back of the helmet that could protect the neck. Could the Armet benefit from having that added? The Frogmouth does have the forward jaw to get thicker metal protection, but doesn't that mean overhead blows will catch more instead of easily sliding off? What if you had the brow protrude further beyond the jaw to have overhead blows slide off of it? Finally, what if you make a segment out of the Frogmouth and hinge it to lift up like a visor? Then you have a Frogmouth with neck protection, no wrapper that can have the strap broken, and a visor to lift up and get your face access outside of the helmet.
Although no where near historical, loved the armor from the 1981 movie Excalibur. Armets generally resemble the helmets used by Arthur's knights at the 2nd half of the movie.
Preface: Haven’t watched the video yet. Metatron might drop some knowledge I don’t know. BUT This is like comparing a bomb suit to a standard soldiers gear.
I’d say I’d go no wrapper being a man of English origin, and since the English tended to fight on foot, if I didn’t go with the Great Bascinet I’d probably go for an Armet that allowed me to move my head around.
For European helmets? I'd probably wear a sallet and bevor. My bias? Tlingit war helmet. Look proud in my cedar face cover and carved cranial cap. It's my choice and I'm giving my native blood that honor, just saying
It's like if you grew up playing football wearing a helmet. You get used to it even though it could be claustrophobic if you weren't familiar with wearing it all the time.
Just one point. The helmet at 11:19 could not be British. Britain was not created until the Act of Union in 1707. Everything before that would be English.
Hey, congrats for the video, I feel happy by seeing many channels historically coherents with such a great taste. I´m from Brazil and here there´s a channel called "brasão de armas" it´s kinda the same style of pourposes, you´re italian right? so you may understand our videos in portuguese, in every case, the channel of Thiago Braga ( Brasão de Armas) also includes subtitles on the options, it would be great to see a collab video between you two, thanks!
You raise some very spot on points with your arguments. I know that you and many many other medieval combat enthusiasts do not view buhurt as a proper swordsmanship and there is a point to it too (as thrusts and a lot of other techniques are completely missing for safety reasons) BUT I do think that sport has a lot of great views on the usability of armour in very physically demanding use. Why do I bring up buhurt? Logic is clear. The lengthy battle in heavy armor on foot is something we do know something about. Points that really support your thesis in several ways: 1: Movement, vision and breathing. Frog mouth will block more of your carbon dioxide exiting the helmet before the next inhale. The choise to wear such a heavy helmet is definately with the use in mind. 2: Versibility and wearibility. Armets (and all types of visored helmets more or less can be worn while getting a breather, drinking and eating if needed. Dressing into a proper harness takes time. Even the helmet. As you pointed out, the visor is there for a reason. This reason. 3: Rondels. Nuff said. Exactly and on point. p.s Buhurt people do include a lot of serious students of multitude of martial arts, including HEMA approach. We are the idiots who want to take part in brutality between people.
is it just me or I find the frogmouth quite well suited for phallanx like formation... with pike, spear and shield wall? I means... its mostly only your head out of shield cover and in thick formation then moving your head around ain't that much an issue... you prefere having go protection against incoming spear thrust as you can'T dodge most. My concern are against rain of arrows, breathing and communication... and I always wonder why there wasnt some kind of Tuba-like system devised to breath from the back of the helmet; well today that could be devised tho.
I don't think the point was brought up in your video, but another big factor with helmet use would of course be availability. If your father had a Frogmouth, and you weren't a rich family, chances are you might wear it yourself if it was in good condition. Armor and weapons were functionally family heirlooms, worth small fortunes. Even just a helmet would be an expensive buy. So, there's a good chance as the decades passed, these helms were inherited and used by the children or grandchildren who went to war. I'd speculate that such helms might have even been something similar to a coat of arms. Every suit of armor was different, and if you were one of the handful of people with a Frogmouth helm in your force (if not the only one), you would be easily recognizable.
I'm a Saxon and I personally agree with your challenge. I think Italians were generally some of the greatest armor smiths in Europe (and perhaps the world) for the Medieval Ages, and mastering armor was simply part of their heritage as a people and nation. I also want to say that us Saxons had a similar helmet style where we had to flaps on our helmets, an oval top, with a face mask. The flaps in a similar fashion would tie together at the bottom so it would better encompass the skull. That and it simply looked intimidating and fierce. This style of helmet was used by Saxons even into the Viking age and we very well might have picked it up from the Romans, though I have no evidence or proof to support this statement, but, I wouldn't completely disregard it.
I would maybe wear a frogmouth to joust, but literally in any other application, I would prefer the armet. Armets look significantly cooler in my opinion as well.
The date thing on helmets is a fair point, I know of at least 2 paintings of battles from the mid 1400's showing guys in frogmouths, basinets, armets, and even a couple great helms which in theory went out of fashion 50-100 years earlier. As to why wear a frog mouth in to battle , well if you owned one why not especially if you expect to run into enemy cavalry.
Also look at the US military now. They decided to change their uniform and EVERY HAD to do it. Yet they were given an enter year to get the new uniform. While they had a specific date they were not aloud to wear the old version AT WORK this is the modern era. All those old uniforms... taken home and used for whatever there,
Greetings noble one. In making theese considerations about a possible development of italian armor pieces from roman metalworks, are you considering, in the future, to talk about italian medieval armor "all'antica"?
Won't be playing WOT,my guy says it's overrun with bots and alt prestige farmers.I had enough of that in Archeage,Would Italians have been able to see Roman relics?That would boost your theory if an example or piece of art showed the face guard mechanism. It looks like an armet/closed helmet is like a hat while a frogmouth is like an extension pf the rest of the set from what you have showed. I always see a coal scuttle when I see a frogmouth.lol.
I wonder if visors were also kept lifted up to avoid cognitive impairment. FortNine recently did a video measuring CO2 levels in motorcycle helmets (ruclips.net/video/x_ej8sehs8k/видео.html), and found that they were high enough to slow down reaction speeds. Given how restrictive these helmets are to airflow, this would have been a much more severe problem for knights doing life-and-death cardio on a battlefield. Not to mention, if your helmet doesn't have a visor, and you want to take it off, you have to put it somewhere, or carry it around, or attach it to yourself clanging as you go along.
Ps. EXCELLENT content as always ;~) and still ecstatic that is is in American lass that stole your heart ;~) dear rest of the world please don't be too salty lol. And I mean that last in Agape and in jest.
Kinda bizarre the hinged cheek plates didn't come back sooner. The Romans had much less screw you power weapons to deal with a much larger army to equip yet even they bothered. Same reason why muscle crucrass didn't last past the ancient era.... pec plates + couch lance warfare equals badnews.
Hello, mate. Just a short comment: I didn't know you play WoT... I played for some time in the past, though now I don't ow the game and my works doesn't leave me free time enough to play, let alone the bad Internet connection. It would be interesting to see some of your clashes... Have a nice time.
They were both the best helmets at doing what they were designed to do. And the fact that knights did own several helmets and choose based on the situation is a great point. I think a lot of people over romanticise knights and forget the fact that they were highly trained professional soldiers. Not some flashy derps. Our modern soldiers don't use the same stuff for any situation either. Sometimes vpam 12 body armor is more useful and sometimes it's just better to go for vpam 6 or 9 and cut some weight and bulk. Other times you go for a fastback helmet with a vpam6 front plate, or a helmet with a vpam3 visor.
Could a helmet ever protect against a full on lance charge? (against a unmounted opponent, as i imagine getting knocked from a horse would reduce the impact somewhat) I did some rough calculations for the energy of a lance strike and its up there with a 30cal rifle, but with vastly more momentum. I can't see someone surviving that even if the armour prevents penetration.
I bet you could wear a smaller open faced helmet under the frog mouth. The frog mouth is pretty big and resting on your shoulders. I don't imagine it would be that encumbering. I have no idea if anyone actually did that, but I would've.
Knowing that even a modern military will field troops with whatever equipment they have available, I have to think that things would be much the same for lower ranked combatants throughout the ages. The less important members of the US Army get all the latest stuff... ten years later.
How do you figure that the "classical period and ancient Rome is a lot closer to the medieval period than us?" Do you mean the medieval period is closer to ancient Rome than we are? Because we are closer to the medieval period than ancient Rome was... which you know of course.
Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3ln9nxx
Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code TANKMANIA to get for free:
7 Days Premium Account
250k credits
Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5)
3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6)
I don't like wrappers as finicky nor lighter configuration as you put it Metatron as it lack protection.
Give me a closed gorget or preferably a articulated Gorget which both it sits pinned to the back plate & chest plate.
There is no reason to not wear an out-cropping bever with an armet as the slight empty space between the helmet & neck protection gives room to deform on impact while being easier to breath.
Edit: 'Barbote' over a ''wrapper'' is what I meant as brain remembered what those specific gorget's are called.
Another point people forget what if your preferred helmet is damaged or in poor condition from prior use?
I'd rather use a well conditioned frogmouth helmet on the battle field then an Armet that is damaged or in subpar condition from prior usage.
''Desperate times call for desperate measures'' as the old adage goes.
I highly suspect some knights would have used frogmouth helmet in battle simply because it was on hand & any head protection is better then non even with decreased vision- head articulation.
What we want & what we get in life are 2 different matters & they rarely align perfectly!
Considering all these terms we have for helmets are just umbrella terms, could it be possible that the frogmouth is just a further development of the armet?
Hi Metatron, the helmets you show, many really remind me of modern motorcycle helmets, (integral), so they didn't really disappear up to today. Just the material is different. Much love!
Thank you for all these details. I have a doubt on the other hand on the way in which you spell "Reneissance" because in French we spell it with an A like this "Renaissance". Is it for a reason to respect phonetics or is there another reason ?
From my experience in armour, the ability to bolt your helm to your cuirass would also give your neck a break, carrying the weight of visored bascinet and associated mail all on your head is quite taxing. Great video!
how it break neck
@@TheMaulam12345 a break means rest, not an injury.
@@TheMaulam12345 Man door hand hook car door.
@@EbenezerEibenhardt what
@@joel.lallier It can mean both
Wrapper and gorget. With a lance charge and the potential of blunt weapons that regularly dent armor and possibly brake bone lol I'll take the extra protection. Also I'm 6 ft 2 and a crack shot with an M-16 A2, if I can learn to be as good with a long bow or Yumi, the two best places for our side to place me would be as part of the shield wall or in the back as a long range shot with a heavy war bow. Eather way having more armor to prevent a repete of the head and spine injuries I experienced in basic training is much appreciated. From personal experience take the extra, brain and central nervous system damage is not fun and generally both are hard for doctors to find and also at least in my experience only get worse over time without miraculous healing.
Fight smarter today, live and be healthy enough to fight a second day. Lol
To the helmet date point - we must remember that all classification is a sinplification, to aid our undetstanding, not an artifact of the real world - and in fact is only possible because of incomplete information. For eg if we had a complete fossil record it would bee impossible to say where a species begins and ends as all would grade into all
personally, im an armet fan.
i think that people forget that horses are living creatures, they walk and run for you, they naturally avoid obstacles and kick your enemies, you just give them directions. they are impressive and huge creatures that killed a lot of people in battle, even if we now consider them like lovely pets.. which they are of course, but still!
the fact that your lower vision is obstructed is not a huge problem on a horse, especially in a heavy charge, when you literally expect to crush and stomp on your enemies with a lance in your hand. right? wanting a very good protection against polearms and lances makes a lot of sense to me. i don't think they would have used a frogmouth for fighting on foot or if they expected a huge amount of melee anyway. for charges? it doesn't seem unreasonable..
Dark Souls 2 gang being represented in this educational video
So, the conclusion is (to use an "Eastonism") - it depends on the CONTEXT 😅
Thanks for the shout out! I don't think I could decide to be honest. I've jousted in a frogmouth great bascinet, and an armet, and wear a sallet for everything else. I think the reason there are so many designs and choices when it comes to medieval armour is because there are so many factors to consider.
I suppose if I was told I just had to choose one helmet, the armet is the most versatile, especially when you consider visors of exchange...
you deserve that shout out. Ever since i discovered your channel i watch everey video.
if i owned FROGMOUTH i would wear it while at walmart and the bank and in the drive through because FROGMOUTH is based and all the women love FROGMOUTH
Regarding the bringing it back idea: Just look at the barbut! Isn't it just a Corinthian helmet? There's plenty of cases where they brought stuff back after someone poked around some ruins. They even did it with laws.
Yes, Barbutes were consciously styled on classical world helmets.
@@nutyyyy That's debatable. There are MANY styles of barbute, and only the most closed ones ("T" or "Y" shaped) that were not the most common ones, resembles corinthian helmets (but, IE, the central ridge, that's typical of the barbute, isn't found on classical helmets).
I think it's more of a case of convergent evolution, barbute strikes me more as a modification of visorless Italian sallet than one based on Corinthian helmet.
That's what I said! It's just a Corinthian made of iron or steel. The Bascinet without the visor is very similar to that too.
I used to think the armet is better by default because it comes later but honestly the frogmouth just resonates better with me now. I mean, it's both derpy and horrifying at the same time, It would be a hit at Halloween parties
I love that you addressed the oddly specific dates used for the development of armor. Even on my own channel, I typically only refer to dates in the form of 100 year periods. Armor styles didnt just switch out like a fashion magazine when the hip new look comes out. There has always been massive overlap in tech.
I mean, some people still use flip phones, so good point
The M1911 is a hundred year old pistol design, there are still guys putting them to hard use.
Just a random thought, but is it actually *that* important for a random member of an army to be able to look around on a battlefield? In the context of Hollywood movie battles where it's just a giant chaotic swirling melee and an attack could come from any direction, the inability to turn one's head would seem like a massive detriment. But real battles usually weren't like that. If your unit maintains its cohesion, the enemy should only be in front of you. If there's an urgent need to be aware of something behind you, chances are that something has gone horribly wrong. Also if only a part of the unit is wearing frogmouths, the ones that aren't can respond to sudden new threats, and perhaps even warn their less responsive mates of a sudden development.
No equipment just disappears. It's why in my study of viking swords, it only really makes sense to look for the date when they were first manufactured in a specific style. We can maybe say 'the style first appeared around date X, and fell out of fashion by date Y,' but they were probably still in use.
I mean, in modern situations, we have people in conflicts using weapons from WWI or WWII still, if they need to.
The 1911 won two world wars
Would be nice to have similar vid on Armet vs Sallet comparison, I know you enjoy your frogmouth a lot but damn I feel like Sallet was a closer competitor to Armet
Interesting! I really appreciate towards the end your point on the possibility that the different helmets were best suited to different jobs and were chosen for such. Someday I'd love to see a video how left-handed people dealt with arms and armor.
Left handed people simply didn't exist in antiquity. In fact, today their presence is largely a myth. Very few original sources even mention them, so clearly they are a fictitious invention of revisionist historians.
To be fair, most weapons of the older world were largely ambidextrous, the only example I can quickly think of which might not have been, might've been a basket-hilt sword, where the basket was specifically shaped to protect the back of the right-hander's sword hand... Most everything else, I'd think could be picked up just as easily by a left-hander 🙏🙏🙏🙏
@@TimParker-Chambers
In all sincerity, ambidexterity was sort of the default on every weapon worldwide until the advent of breechloading repeaters with ejecting shells.
And,
Because Bec De Corbin's are universal...
Didn't know how Richard III died but now I'm going to venture forth the theory that someone removed his helmet during a battle and then proceeded to introduce him to the wondrous world of severe head trauma 😂
Wait, what? King Richard is dead?!?
¡ THE KING IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE KING !
@@KenDelloSandro7565they said didn’t know HOW king Henry the 3rd died not that king Henry the 3rd died
My favourite is the close helm type armet with an optional wrapper. On a side note, I'm fond of the German term Stechbart for the wrapper, which would translate to something like stab-beard. A metal beard preventing lances from stabbing you in the face, not a beard to stab someone with, unfortunately ... still. Metalbeard! I also like the simple genius of the close helm with only two shared pivot points. And the symmetry. To me, the "armet"- armet with hinges and pivots appears sort of ... untidy is much too strong an expression, but, y'know ... Additionally, the minute asymmetry of the overlapping cheeks constantly tickles my OCD tendencies and sets me a little on edge😆.
I think if it comes to drawing/painting armor like that, even if iconography shows these types of helmets being used, it could just mean that's the type of armor that the artist was familiar with. Like most artworks, they are based on reality, and since I don't think many painters visited battlefields, it seems to me that they had greater chances to observe the jaust. And when it came to painting, it was like "oh that helmet looks cool - I'll paint it", without a full understanding of neuance. Hope that makes any sense. And it's just my guesses on a subject, from artist perspective, as we won't know for sure.
Remember that a lot of artwork like that was specifically commissioned by the very nobility that was on those battlefields. A certain level of authenticity and fidelity would have been expected. It would be as if you as an artist were commissioned to make a painting about a recent battle, specifically by war veterans. I doubt you’d just paint whatever gear comes to mind.
@@metatronyt But would it be possible that those who commissioned the painting would want to be represented in a way that was most agreeable to their own ego and self image and so may have instructed the painter to use the frogmouth helm because it looks, in your own words, more intimidating? Are there some artists who can be said to have witnessed battles first hand with historical certainty? I know if I was asked to paint something from memory it would be easier with some examples on hand to reference which would probably be provided by those commissioning the work.
@@Ian_Carolan Well, if the frogmouth was indeed seen by them as joust-only, the drawing would look silly to anyone who knew their shit instead of being intimidating, wouldn't it?
I thought of another disadvantage to armets.
When the design is made to be as close- and form fitting as possible, the protection against concussive force will probably be decreased.
Compare it to a larger helmet that is suspended from the top of your head with more air between the inside of the helmet and your skull, if you get struck on the head the weight of the helmet will absorb a lot of the concussive energy.
It might make your helmet move and shift in an uncomfortable way, but it beats getting a fractured skull.
With this in mind, I'd feel more safe wearing a frogmouth if going up against an opponent armed with a reinforces club or mace, but less so if wearing an armet.
But there is a reason that frogmouth helmets were only for jousting and that was because it was too heavy and too narrow vision
I've worn both in unmounted melee and honestly they're about the same except the Armet looks cooler 😋
Both are a bit hard to wear they're really tiring I was dripping with sweat both times, the frogmouth was a bit odd because on foot the natural response to being hit so high is to present the crown or brow of your head which is usually the toughest bit of the helm but I barely felt hits coming from below so hits to my jawline skated off too, just had to get into habit of lifting my chin without blinding myself.
I think another advantage of the Armet was that it was closer to my face, when you're dashing about in mud with flies buzzing around your head keeping it all out felt necessary, I remember a Jouster telling me that he tilted with a bee in his frogmouth 😄
Who needs vision when youre the protag. Just swing and eventually youll win
The Roman helmet was based upon Celtic helms regarding the neck guards and cheek pieces, was it not?
It was based on a bunch of helmets. The Romans are very inclusive of people's "culture" when it came to their war technology.
Great video, I really like Armets. Also thanks about mentioning close helmets and maximillian armour. If you have a knowledge about Greenwich Armour - could you make a video about it? I really like the style of it and would like to hear more about it.
I've noticed that many of the Wagner guys, fighting in Ukraine, have apparently abandoned their body armor, and even their helmets. Presumably, they find that agility outweighs the advantages of armor ... at least in their particular combat arena. The ones I've noticed, do retain their weight-bearing harness for magazines, and they adopt a variety of soft hats. At lot of these guys are engaged in urban warfare, apparently moving on-foot.
Interesting. Is that in actual combat or in control missions (or propaganda)? Usually closer the combat gets, like in urban warfare, more protection you want.
@@santerilaakeristo7305 It's just my own observation from the videos that I've seen, which have been posted by Wagner forces. I guess that some of the soldiers will choose to have the maximum protection. From what I've seen, most casualties result from artillery fire, and the body-armor perhaps is not very effective. I dunno, I'm only speculating. If you look at the close-up videos of trench fighting, you will see many men being killed at close range, by small-arms fire ... despite the fact that they are wearing a full complement of body armor.
Part of it is how long you expect to be in action, and environment. If you are only expecting to fight for a few minutes every few days wearing armor makes sense. Also, are you using night vision? You def need a helmet for that. I would still wear armor and a helmet in urban fighting, it saved many American soldiers during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars/occupations. I assume there are lots of snipers in Ukraine, so I would doubly want armor. Fortunately very effective lightweight armor exists, but I am guessing these Wagner mercs don't all have access to it. They probably have to wear hybrid ceramic armor which is heavy. My plates weigh 2 pounds each and will stop any round up to 7.62x57 ap (tungsten core) or 30-06 ap (steel core). My helmet also weighs a little over 2 pounds. For the protection they provide, I think it is worth it. But believe me I would be taking off my plates any time I thought it was safe. Considering how many guys are getting killed by artillery shrapnel over there I am surprised they go without armor entirely. No amount of agility difference made by dropping a few pounds is going to make a difference when an artillery shell explodes in your general vicinity. You better be under cover, or you are getting shredded.
@@rcfokker1630 You can still be killed with armor, getting shot in the upper portion of any limb will bleed you out without medical attention in short order. Also guys aim for the waist or the pit of the throat where almost no one wears rifle rated armor. Up close fighting is different than 100 yards+. The farther away they are, the more likely they will just be aiming center mass.
@@rcfokker1630 Hold on for a second. We were talking about Wagner forces in urban warfare and lack of body armor. You said most of the casualties are from artillery fire, and I agree that’s probably true, but I’m not that sure Ukrainians are willing to shell their own cities that extensively, so casualties there are more likely to be from actual combat. I definitely could be mistaken thought.
I think you have seen footage of casualties wearing body armor, proving that people are using it in actual combat, and footage from non-combat situations where people are not wearing it. And like the other guy said you would take your armor of whenever you could. You are tens of kilometres away from frontlines, you are not going to get caught while your pants are down, you probably don’t need you armor on.
It is really a shame that Ian has abandoned his knight errant channel.
Frogmouth is king, just for the shape and how interesting it looks. Tea pot helm W 😎
Very interesting fact the one about the dates you said in minute 12 to 13. As I say to my pupils people in History didn't go to bed in Medieval era and wake up next morning in Modern ages. Things are part of a process, a change which occurs gradually. With helmets, with models of swords... just as today: even if mobile phones are most common every day still are people who use the old cable phones. Same in the past, technologies didn't appear or dissapear from one day to another, exactly as art styles, politic ideas, phylosopihical theories... Thanks as usual for your videos.
Very informative video; definitely the extensive depictions of the frogmouth in battlefield or on foot duel scenarios have convinced me of the larger picture of it being used outside of jousting.
I like that on Dark Souls 2, the game on the background screen, they have a very ornate and beautiful Frogmouth called the Loyce Helm, which is definitely not bolted but it does stay still when you move, so no neck movement there.
On dark souls 3 there's Lapp's Helm, which is a more proper frogmouth, which depending on your chest piece of choice, changes to be bolted to the chest, or be a stand alone helm.
Very cool stuff.
Good release!
I believe that the Frogmouth helmet was not used in the war. Only in tournaments. Usually it weighs a lot, it is impossible to fasten it yourself from behind.
Armet ideal knight helmet for war.
I don’t know what’s the best helm but I do know the Metatron is the best when it comes to clapping historical cheeks!!! You’re the greatest man in history Metatron!!!
extra wrapper or no .. well theres things to be said for both situations .. I guess Id choose based on what I was expecting to happen on the day. A raid type situation I might choose less protection because I might want to move fast and be able to react to the unexpected .. a full battle I might sacrifice flexibility if it looked like a long day
Probably my favourite video of yours. I just love armet helms, im obsessed.
(Davvero complimenti, aspettavo da tanto un video simile!!)
Could you make a video on the armor style called Kastenbrust? There is almost no videos on it. I really like your Burgundian knight armor video so it would be cool to see someone talk about the Kastenbrust style especially because you see it on a decent bit of effigies like the ones in Innsbruck. A notable thing about those is just how boxy the breast plates are compared to modern interpretations. Maybe you could shine some light on this almost forgotten style of armor.
Hey Metatron! I really love your videos and I just want to ask if you could make a video about the landsknechts?
I think I would choose an armet with a visor, for the versatility; and also, because I like to see and breathe, and eat and drink occasionally.
I don't think I'd wear either helmet but if I absolutely HAD TO, I'd...probably follow your example and wear what fits the situation the most and what would ensure my survival the best. I kinda like my life. Really tho, I'm not that much of a fighter. I like my weapons and stuff but combat isn't my forte. or conflict in general. I'm pretty timid and shy IRL.
a few videos ago someone commented that metatron content is shifting towards more clickable titles and such and i responded that its most likely not some trend shift but just a part of evolution of the channel and the channel creator trying to not burn himself out, now seeing a "typical" video im pretty sure i was right
This video was ribbitting.
The frogmouth looks rad but it invites direct blows to the top of the head more than any other.
perhaps next time you can compare armet vs sallet vs pig faced helm vs frogmouth.
Another great and interesting video! Thank you.
Phrygian helmets also had this feature. In some of these helmets the cheek pieces had the shape of a beard.
There's quite a few helmets that share these broad features, in the ancient world and in the early medieval period. And arguably in the later medieval period as well.
@@nutyyyy I know, right !That's my point
Out of the two I would choose the bolted down frog for shield wall and the armett with wrap and still a gorgett for back line archer.
Random funny thought: Were there any style point farming battlefield streakers who would run into the action naked and try to dodge stuff and beat people up barehanded?
1:24 Chickpeas? 🤡
18:15 Funny to consider that today we only like to dehumanize the enemy whereas back then people were dehumanizing themselves, too. (Although maybe we could say that today people do it through actions combined with forced self-unawareness.)
P.S.: Would be great if you could get a camera lens into it to show us an approximate visibility. (But it is worth considering that visibility through a small opening improves with moving the eyes closer to it.)
they could make a tiny hole in a frogmouth for a mcdonalds straw
Do you really NEED a helmet to conform closer to the jaw and neck, though? Or would you benefit more from filling in the gaps with more protective padding?
The main advantage is range of motion. Padding and even mail isn't going to protect your throat and neck from everything. This is a weakness of bascinets, and the great bascinet solution removed your ability to move your head around as easily. There are advantages to the more rigid design of the great bascinet though.
Thank You very much for this video 🙂 !
Hi Metatron! Regarding the closing mechanism, how do you know medieval Italian armorers had access to such Roman helmets? Not saying that the theory isn't plausible
I think you might be right about it being a reinstallmint
What i found about medieval iconography and art , it is that it is pretty accurate . What it is a books and paintings is pretty accurate to the time the author lived , expecially if they represnts scenes of medieval life and battle . Yes , some artistic licenses existed but in generai it is pretty accurate . Paintings were treated more like pictures in our days , then something that the artist may dream of . When it came to clothes , armour and weapons or scenes of lifes they are pretty spot on.
I always thought that left side being more armoured compared to right side is due to Jousting and Tournaments.
Your opponent will be by your left side.
Tournament and "field" amours have plenty of differences.
In war someone trying to lance you would more likely be hitting your left side, this is the origin of the joust and the reason why they lanced on that side In the joust.
@@rileyernst9086 No. when you fighting on a battlefield it is not one on one "joust" or fight. it is Line vs Line, and in that style of fight you have opponents to your left and to your right and they both have equal opportunity to hit you.
Well with a heavy cavalry action you're most likely to clash head on. And lancing across your body is bloody awkward, and lancing across the frontage of the guy next to you is not the best way to make friends. So no you are totally expecting that strike to hit your left side.
Lancers were also used on the battlefield remember
F R O G
I can see Frogmouth as a preferred option for an armored fist charge right into a center of enemy line. As for the other, I mean, I can see a nobleman with a Roman helmet talking to an armorer and talking about what he wants and referring back to the Roman helmet and the armorer borrowing the helmet to study to make the nobleman helmet.
I had been waiting for a video about the armet!
For me, the image of an Italian condottiero from the 1460s charging on horseback with his full wrapper armet, is just too fascinating
I just made a frog-mouth and an armet recently
6:55 some historians believe that the last words he heard were: “OY! That’s my horse!”
there is nothing better than FROGMOUTH
FROGMOUTH is the most superior by far
FROGMOUTH is in fact sexy
What about the possibility of a frog mouth being used like a great helm, with an open face basinet or the like underneath. So when they feel they want more visibility and breathing they can take the frog mouth off and still have head protection. I don't see why that wouldn't be a reasonable assumption as they had examples and knowledge of the great helm and bacinet combination. Tournament armor and combat armor are designed and constructed in different ways from each other but are aesthetically similar, so I'd imagine that if you were to hold a frog mouth from one of the illustrations, it would feel completely different from a tournament helm and with a different liner system. Basically a reintroduction and redesign of the Great helm. Or was the great helm ever discontinued in use before the frog mouth gained popularity. Just a thought
I really like the explanation that they had many choices of armour, shields and helmets for a variety of "jobs".
Like today, we have many tools that do the same job, the difference being specialisation for a specific situation usually.
And I think people in the past had more ingenuity for alot of problem solving, then we do today. I would say there tools for metal work and sowing techniques show that well.
Not that we cant do that today... Just that we dont spend enough time testing stuff physically... Unlike Tod, he does alot haha.
Interesting indeed 👍👍👍👍 I think for every-day use, I would probably choose an armet, for that versatility to take a breath, drink, etc, but for something specific like a tourney joust, I would definitely want a frogmouth...
With a joust, as mentioned by Don Johnson's character in Django Unchained; all that matters is that the horse can see where it's going... 🙈🙈🙈🙈🤣🤣🤣🤣
Frog all the way baby
I personally like Armet designs and it seems to be a versatile helmet which could be good for foot or horse back. The frogmouth looks amazing but I personally think it has the advantage in joust and cavalry use mostly. I would assume that a mounted knight would face lots of foot infantry and the lower protection on the frogmouth would be an advantage against attacks coming from foot infantry and if they charged other knights the frogmouth would have the advantage just like in a joust. If I were a knight I'd own both and use according to situation 😅
It's lap!!!
You said "you muppet" TO US while LOOKING LIKE ONE YOURSELF. 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for making this. I had some questions:
What's the problem with having to turn your torso to look around if you have a wrapper or frog mouth? That seems like a minor inconvenience at worst.
What's the benefit of a closed helmet opening design over an Armet?
You mentioned that taking off Armets are difficult to take off. Why? Would Frogmouths be easier to take off?
I also got some ideas I got for the helmets:
In your Top 10 (11) Most Effective Helmets video, there was a German variant of the Salat that had an elongated piece on the back of the helmet that could protect the neck. Could the Armet benefit from having that added?
The Frogmouth does have the forward jaw to get thicker metal protection, but doesn't that mean overhead blows will catch more instead of easily sliding off? What if you had the brow protrude further beyond the jaw to have overhead blows slide off of it?
Finally, what if you make a segment out of the Frogmouth and hinge it to lift up like a visor? Then you have a Frogmouth with neck protection, no wrapper that can have the strap broken, and a visor to lift up and get your face access outside of the helmet.
Although no where near historical, loved the armor from the 1981 movie Excalibur. Armets generally resemble the helmets used by Arthur's knights at the 2nd half of the movie.
Preface: Haven’t watched the video yet. Metatron might drop some knowledge I don’t know.
BUT
This is like comparing a bomb suit to a standard soldiers gear.
I’d say I’d go no wrapper being a man of English origin, and since the English tended to fight on foot, if I didn’t go with the Great Bascinet I’d probably go for an Armet that allowed me to move my head around.
Armet
armets easy
For European helmets? I'd probably wear a sallet and bevor. My bias? Tlingit war helmet. Look proud in my cedar face cover and carved cranial cap. It's my choice and I'm giving my native blood that honor, just saying
It's like if you grew up playing football wearing a helmet. You get used to it even though it could be claustrophobic if you weren't familiar with wearing it all the time.
0:05 what a way of greeting someone! XDDDDDD I love you Metatron!
Just one point. The helmet at 11:19 could not be British. Britain was not created until the Act of Union in 1707. Everything before that would be English.
Hey, congrats for the video, I feel happy by seeing many channels historically coherents with such a great taste.
I´m from Brazil and here there´s a channel called "brasão de armas" it´s kinda the same style of pourposes, you´re italian right? so you may understand our videos in portuguese, in every case, the channel of Thiago Braga ( Brasão de Armas) also includes subtitles on the options, it would be great to see a collab video between you two, thanks!
You raise some very spot on points with your arguments. I know that you and many many other medieval combat enthusiasts do not view buhurt as a proper swordsmanship and there is a point to it too (as thrusts and a lot of other techniques are completely missing for safety reasons) BUT I do think that sport has a lot of great views on the usability of armour in very physically demanding use.
Why do I bring up buhurt? Logic is clear.
The lengthy battle in heavy armor on foot is something we do know something about. Points that really support your thesis in several ways:
1: Movement, vision and breathing.
Frog mouth will block more of your carbon dioxide exiting the helmet before the next inhale. The choise to wear such a heavy helmet is definately with the use in mind.
2: Versibility and wearibility.
Armets (and all types of visored helmets more or less can be worn while getting a breather, drinking and eating if needed. Dressing into a proper harness takes time. Even the helmet.
As you pointed out, the visor is there for a reason. This reason.
3: Rondels. Nuff said. Exactly and on point.
p.s Buhurt people do include a lot of serious students of multitude of martial arts, including HEMA approach. We are the idiots who want to take part in brutality between people.
is it just me or I find the frogmouth quite well suited for phallanx like formation... with pike, spear and shield wall?
I means... its mostly only your head out of shield cover and in thick formation then moving your head around ain't that much an issue... you prefere having go protection against incoming spear thrust as you can'T dodge most.
My concern are against rain of arrows, breathing and communication... and I always wonder why there wasnt some kind of Tuba-like system devised to breath from the back of the helmet;
well today that could be devised tho.
I don't think the point was brought up in your video, but another big factor with helmet use would of course be availability. If your father had a Frogmouth, and you weren't a rich family, chances are you might wear it yourself if it was in good condition. Armor and weapons were functionally family heirlooms, worth small fortunes. Even just a helmet would be an expensive buy. So, there's a good chance as the decades passed, these helms were inherited and used by the children or grandchildren who went to war.
I'd speculate that such helms might have even been something similar to a coat of arms. Every suit of armor was different, and if you were one of the handful of people with a Frogmouth helm in your force (if not the only one), you would be easily recognizable.
In any battle situation, I think I would prefer sallet (lamellar back)+bevor. Sorry, Raph.
I'm a Saxon and I personally agree with your challenge. I think Italians were generally some of the greatest armor smiths in Europe (and perhaps the world) for the Medieval Ages, and mastering armor was simply part of their heritage as a people and nation. I also want to say that us Saxons had a similar helmet style where we had to flaps on our helmets, an oval top, with a face mask. The flaps in a similar fashion would tie together at the bottom so it would better encompass the skull. That and it simply looked intimidating and fierce. This style of helmet was used by Saxons even into the Viking age and we very well might have picked it up from the Romans, though I have no evidence or proof to support this statement, but, I wouldn't completely disregard it.
I would maybe wear a frogmouth to joust, but literally in any other application, I would prefer the armet. Armets look significantly cooler in my opinion as well.
The date thing on helmets is a fair point, I know of at least 2 paintings of battles from the mid 1400's showing guys in frogmouths, basinets, armets, and even a couple great helms which in theory went out of fashion 50-100 years earlier. As to why wear a frog mouth in to battle , well if you owned one why not especially if you expect to run into enemy cavalry.
DEFENSE is the best offense. Hard to damage hard to kril
Gimme the most protective helmet!
Also look at the US military now. They decided to change their uniform and EVERY HAD to do it. Yet they were given an enter year to get the new uniform. While they had a specific date they were not aloud to wear the old version AT WORK this is the modern era. All those old uniforms... taken home and used for whatever there,
Could I look at bo-hurt to know 'the best' armor & helmets?
Or are these modern ideas?
Truly enjoy your vids, Sir. Appreciate them a lot 👍
Greetings noble one.
In making theese considerations about a possible development of italian armor pieces from roman metalworks, are you considering, in the future, to talk about italian medieval armor "all'antica"?
Won't be playing WOT,my guy says it's overrun with bots and alt prestige farmers.I had enough of that in Archeage,Would Italians have been able to see Roman relics?That would boost your theory if an example or piece of art showed the face guard mechanism. It looks like an armet/closed helmet is like a hat while a frogmouth is like an extension pf the rest of the set from what you have showed. I always see a coal scuttle when I see a frogmouth.lol.
This is easy! Frog Mouth: good for jousting & heavy cavalry charges. Armet: good for foot combat & light cavalry work. Gimme a hard question!
I wonder if visors were also kept lifted up to avoid cognitive impairment. FortNine recently did a video measuring CO2 levels in motorcycle helmets (ruclips.net/video/x_ej8sehs8k/видео.html), and found that they were high enough to slow down reaction speeds. Given how restrictive these helmets are to airflow, this would have been a much more severe problem for knights doing life-and-death cardio on a battlefield. Not to mention, if your helmet doesn't have a visor, and you want to take it off, you have to put it somewhere, or carry it around, or attach it to yourself clanging as you go along.
Ps. EXCELLENT content as always ;~) and still ecstatic that is is in American lass that stole your heart ;~) dear rest of the world please don't be too salty lol. And I mean that last in Agape and in jest.
Kinda bizarre the hinged cheek plates didn't come back sooner. The Romans had much less screw you power weapons to deal with a much larger army to equip yet even they bothered. Same reason why muscle crucrass didn't last past the ancient era.... pec plates + couch lance warfare equals badnews.
Hello, mate. Just a short comment: I didn't know you play WoT... I played for some time in the past, though now I don't ow the game and my works doesn't leave me free time enough to play, let alone the bad Internet connection. It would be interesting to see some of your clashes... Have a nice time.
Looking forward to seeing the Richard the Third Video. Excellent video dude!
They were both the best helmets at doing what they were designed to do.
And the fact that knights did own several helmets and choose based on the situation is a great point.
I think a lot of people over romanticise knights and forget the fact that they were highly trained professional soldiers. Not some flashy derps.
Our modern soldiers don't use the same stuff for any situation either. Sometimes vpam 12 body armor is more useful and sometimes it's just better to go for vpam 6 or 9 and cut some weight and bulk. Other times you go for a fastback helmet with a vpam6 front plate, or a helmet with a vpam3 visor.
To the question asked. Depends if on foot or on horse. On horse I will, on foot only when fighting against cavalery charge.
Could a helmet ever protect against a full on lance charge? (against a unmounted opponent, as i imagine getting knocked from a horse would reduce the impact somewhat)
I did some rough calculations for the energy of a lance strike and its up there with a 30cal rifle, but with vastly more momentum.
I can't see someone surviving that even if the armour prevents penetration.
I bet you could wear a smaller open faced helmet under the frog mouth. The frog mouth is pretty big and resting on your shoulders. I don't imagine it would be that encumbering. I have no idea if anyone actually did that, but I would've.
Knowing that even a modern military will field troops with whatever equipment they have available, I have to think that things would be much the same for lower ranked combatants throughout the ages. The less important members of the US Army get all the latest stuff... ten years later.
How do you figure that the "classical period and ancient Rome is a lot closer to the medieval period than us?" Do you mean the medieval period is closer to ancient Rome than we are? Because we are closer to the medieval period than ancient Rome was... which you know of course.