I have to wonder if his accent is fake, not like completely faked, but like the way and American would fake an accent from Texas while doing a showing at the Alamo museum, that sort of thing. Either way, he does a marvelous job of it.
Im a history teacher. I kind of teach like this. I tell stories, move around the room reenacting, use pictures, and use videos. What do I get from my class in return? Sleeping or random questions about if I play Fortnite or saw the latest Marvel movie. Sometimes you just cant win.
Knut Blix As a history student, it was teachers like you that truly interested me in the subject. Can't thank people like you enough, keep doing what you're doing.
Soldiers would do a lot of things we normal people would find strange, remember that a soldiers life was 98% marching, being bored and being tried) That small skull cap and hat weighs a lot less than the lobster tail helmet, and unlike the helmet the cap is easy to put in your knapsack when not in battle. Soldiers would strip all "uneseracry" weight(except plunder) In 1705 the Dutch reintroduced the cuirass for their cavalry, yet the troopers hated it, it was uncomfortable, it got hot in the summer and weighed a lot, so the Dutch troopers kept "misplacing them" using them as cookware etc, the possible protection the cuirass gave them was not big enough for them to be willing to shlep them around.
People have been risking their lives to look good, for as long as there have been fashions to follow. About a hundred years after this, people would powder their faces with white lead, which is highly poisonous, a hundred years after that women would crush themselves with corsettes that squeezed their internal organs and today we have people starving themselves and injecting neurotoxins into their faces to look good. Hell, for hundreds of years, Chinese women litterally broke their feet and mangled them, because a previous emperor had a fetish for women with small feet. Wearing your flashy ostritch feather hat into battle is nothing, at least these guys had SOME protection under them.
This guy is basically a younger Lindybeige, and i love it. Something to note, however, is that medieval plate armour did actually protect against firearms... just not to the same degree. Hand-held firearms of the late medieval era were less powerful than Civil War-era firearms, so medieval armour was moreorless able to withstand contemporary firearms - especially at long-range. It wasn't invincible, sure, but tests have been done which show that reproduction late-medieval plate armour can actually withstand some types of modern firearm (such as certain kinds of handgun). After the medieval period, armour simply adapted to keep up with the development of firearms. There wasn't a sudden rush to replace "obsolete" 15th century plate. As firearms became more fearsome, plate armour became gradually thicker to resist them. This is also why Civil War-era plate didn't cover the entire body; the armour weighed more, and there's only so much weight a person can wear and still be combat-effective. Omitting lower leg armour was a weight-saving measure, as protecting the shins was not considered a priority. Incidentally, this is why riding boots came to exist. After plate armour for the lower legs was phased out during this period, cavalrymen took to wearing taller leather boots, as leather provides some level of protection for the shins without piling on the pounds. The main reason why medieval-style plate armour fell out of use was mentioned in this video; people could not afford the expense. Plate armour was the height of medieval military technology (and so was extremely effective), but with the end of the Feudal System and the increasing reliance on lowly professional soldiers, the concept of the "noble knight" simply became antiquated. Because most professional soldiers could not afford a suit of plate armour (which cost the same as an expensive house), tactics changed to focus on larger formations of more uniform, disciplined troops. This lead to the era of "pike and shot", where infantry soldiers wielded polearms and firearms in large, dense units - both of which could cause knights a lot of grief. Compared with these more streamlined and efficient types of military unit, employing small groups of hyper-elite, melee-oriented cavalry (who only fought when they could be persuaded to) became prohibitively expensive, not to mention tactically impotent. The states of Europe focused instead on building professional armies in the style we know today. Sorry, i just get really into this. ;-;
Love the humor while imparting historical background facts that are really worth knowing when one reads accounts of the military actions in the English Civil Wars. GREAT job!!!
Thank you for these little snippets of the vast collection! It is wonderful to see such priceless historical arms and armour, and to learn about their history.
@@RoyalArmouries I have a question: How much of this stuff is Authentic (as in Original) and How much of this stuff is reproduction ? As a lot of stuff hasn't survived the English Civil war/ Just curious
National disgrace in the U.K. we refuse to educate our youth on their own history. This is a topic that never enters the curriculum. We need more of this 👍
@@leod-sigefast It’s not on any of the national curriculum haha you can literally look it up. Also I’m early 30s was never taught it. Have younger cousins all going through school none of them have a clue about it. How do you know it’s being taught in schools then divvy ?
Not too bad for 10 minutes. The enemy general was actually a colonel of the Parlementarian army, Sir Arthur Haselrigge. He led a regiment of cuirassiers known as Haselrigge's Lobsters. The battle where he was shot by Atkins (and others) was Roundway Down, 13th of July, 1643. The flintlock was better known as a firelock at this early stage of it's development. In the 1640's it would have been the very latest thing & quite expensive.
I'm the other side of the world (New Zealand), but have gone quite out my way to visit the leeds Armoury, its very impressive. It was ironic however that there was a exhibition of The Lord of the Rings weaponry there which I have already seen in my home town.
I'd love to know what were the specifically British caracteristics of this equipment compared to, let's say its Habsburg, Dutch or French counterparts of the same period.
I'm not sure there's much that was specifically British as quite a few of the officers involved had experience from fighting on the continent and brought all of that knowledge back with them.
They were all rather similar. Differences can usually be attributed to Puritan focuses on modesty. So straighter collars, less intricate designs, that sort of thing.
To the people talking about the loading of firearms: A lot of people are referring to how he mentioned you load, 'powder, ball, wad', & a lot of people seem to be upset by this, let me explain a little bit. During the English Civil War soldiers using flintlocks, snaplocks, snaphaunce, doglocks, miquelete locks, wheellocks, arquebuses, (other like-terms), etc. For the sake of convenience, we'll call them firelocks. I don't think necessarily had pre-made / rolled cartridges like they would've had during the American Revolutionary War, or Napoleonic Wars. They didn't really have cartridge boxes like you'd see during those time periods. Instead, soldiers of the time often relied on carrying loose balls, & had a bandolier that carried pre-measured black powder charges that they'd pour down the barrel of their firelock. They'd then typically use a powder horn / flask to prime the pan of the firelock, then give fire. Pre-rolled / made cartridges sort of negated this, & only the rifle regiments really used powder flasks. With a premade cartridge, I can bite, prime with a little powder, pour down the muzzle, then paper, & remaining shot, I can smash down with the ramrod, thus creating a double seal that would help the round travel. Now, I'm not saying that this guy isn't right, but logically speaking, armies of the time period weren't concerned with superb accuracy, it was about volume of fire. Adding wads means more steps which means more time. Armies just wanted a mass wall of lead flying towards their enemy. Your average soldier wasn't a marksman. Also if you notice, he's referring to a pistol, specifically cuirassiers using pistols, & pistols were only effective at close range, & cuirassiers were practically planting the pistol on people's chests, one of the reasons they probably didn't do the powder, wad, ball method was 'cause with a wad on the outside, you're less likely to have the ball roll out of the barrel while it's holstered, or while you're galloping around. So maybe this guy didn't know exactly what he was talking about, maybe he forgot a step, perhaps he was right, & we just had the wrong idea. If you don't believe me, look at some examples of cannons, they'd do double wadding even after the shell or round ball was placed, double sealing, & it means that your round isn't gonna' necessarily roll out. A lot of the times wads were waxed too. The 95th Regiment of Rifles explains that they used both loose balls, loose patches, & a powder flask, for when they need to make really accurate shots, & then they also carried pre-rolled ammunition for faster reloading purposes, & firing in formation. This way they could be utilized as formation units, & skirmishers. A lot of you that shoot modern black powder do so for hunting or target practice, not for war (obviously), with that said, you're not doing a lot of running, or tilting your musket or rifle barrel down where the ball could potentially slide out. So simply powder, wad, ball works in that case. But really, you'd ideally want, powder, wad, ball, wad, of some sort; which is why the pre-made rounds were the way they were. You bit the end, poured the powder in the priming pan, & then down the barrel, then stuffed the rest in the barrel. Spit tapping is a whole other thing, & could be potentially dangerous; however, it is faster, & has been proven to work.
Love transitional periods in history. Armor had to get heavier to protect from muskets which in turn made it impractical and expensive. Muskets themselves increasingly replaced archers as it is much faster to train in firearms than archery and therefore cheaper to replace. Fascinating stuff
I once accompanied my friend, who was a historian, and they were showing off a new piece they had acquired. It was a used Reiter's cuirass with numerous dents made by musket balls from pistols. And I noticed the dents were made deeper and deeper the closer it got to the chest, and I kept thinking to myself "Man they must have hated this guy to focus on him so much." Then as if right on cue they revealed the rest of the plate showing a massive dent on where the calf would be. Apparently even *God* hated him because he didn't die to a musket ball no, he was knocked from his horse, and the stirrup caused him to get stuck and the horse's hoof crashed into his calf paralyzing him till he died of blood lost and shock.
Moral of the story: Armor isn't worth shit, if you have the luck of a Frenchman in an English pub. That or King Charles in a pub with Oliver Cromwell. That or one of Henry VIII's wives when he fancies another lass.
Augustus Borgia I just disagree about the idea that armor is useless. If that so, why u think those military engineers, from ancient time to nowadays, had invested unaccountable ideas and time for improving protection gears ? (they were many armors used in US civil war and WW1, also both Japan and Korean developed first modern bullet resistant armor by using 30 layers of silk fabric). If u try to keep yourself safe then don't go into battle at all. Armors is designed for against specific threat rather than providing some sorts of holy shield for wearers. Even 10% survivability is better than nothing at all.
Brilliant presentation, entertaining, informative, and clear as the proverbial bell! I'm aging and having trouble hearing/understanding most dialog in television programs and need to use the closed captioning most of the time, but I didn't have a single issue with this fellow's presentation. Thank you. :)
I want your job, can we get an hbo series about the english civil war plz? Maybe include some cossacks and ottoman pirates and winged hussars while ur at it?
8:45 As it happens, rapiers WERE quite heavy (especially the military ones which were less sporty). A typical rapier weighs 3 pounds. The center of gravity is close to your hand, so they _feel_ quite light and handy; but a rapier can certainly parry a backsword, sabre, or other such cutting sword. They're also very stiff in spite of being slender.
NOTE: This is not my account, it's my little brothers, & I was too lazy to log into mine. I'd also like to point out that I'm merely clarifying & elaborating on what you've already said & by no means am arguing with you; only agreeing. I perfectly understand what you're saying with regards to the rapier, & the myth that they were 'light'; however, three pounds is pretty normal for one handed swords of Western design. For instance, the medieval arming sword typically weighed around three pounds (give or take a pound depending on the specifications of the sword altogether: hilt, blade, pommel, guard, etc.). So I wouldn't say they were heavy, per se, but they definitely weren't as light as modern fencing foils are. Yes, the center of gravity was close to your hand, this gave the rapier more point control, along with the ricasso which allowed for greater grip strength and torque. The blade itself was typically kept razor sharp for push and draw cuts, & while the blade was primarily used for thrusting, it could just as easily entertain light slashes with the lower third towards the tip of the blade. The rapier in itself was definitely not a hacking weapon, although slapping with the spine of the blade could prove fatal or give injury as it's still by all means a metal rod. I'd also like to confirm that they can, indeed, parry & / or block the blades you've mentioned, but all of this also comes down to the swordsmen as an individual & their respective training with 'said weapon'. I'd also like to mention that although rapiers were seen on the battlefield, & sometimes used, they were typically used for not only dueling, but fashion as well. The longer the rapier, combined with how low it was worn on the individual discerned how fashionable the user was. There were such things as 'war rapiers' which are pretty synonymous with the term 'sidesword' which was the precursor to the rapier. (Personally I prefer this weapon as it is like an arming sword with a rapier's hilt). Rapiers eventually evolved into court swords, & other weapons alike.
Excellent presentation. When Iwas in Graz, Austria, I visited the Armory to get a look at the world class displays there. The vast majority of the collection was from this era, and represented arms and armor that was used in the Hapsburg-Ottoman Wars. I saw the proofing dimples on a lot of pieces that were obviosly not for the common footman. Very ornate and beautifully made. There were other sets by the hundreds from arsenal storage that were issued to men in time of need. All manner of arms and accoutrements. Quite a few cuirasses had been repaired, which indicated they were not bullet proof. The holes had been peened shut and some kind of solder work filled the fracturing. Pity the poor man who used it last. Another interesting thing was that there were several full panoplies made for very tall men - well over 6 feet tall. These were for heavy knights, whom I believe would have been the equivalent of todays super athletes. Most of the more common arsenal issued gear looked like it would fit a boy of 13. Then, I considered the swords, axes, and pole arms and thought, "any 13 yearold today who could handle those weapons would be a freak of nature." Those men may have only been 5'8", but they must have been very stout.
Very entertaining and simply superb! Enjoyed it so much I've subscribed. One correction; it is, "this armour" not, "these armours". Armour is an irregular noun and maintains its original form even when plural.
Are you sure? I've wondered about this myself cos Metatron also says "armours" and although he's not a native speaker, he is an English language nerd, and often those who have to learn a foreign language can pick up on points we native speakers miss. So, although as a native speaker "armours" grates, I think, when speaking about different types of armour from a technical point of view, "armours" might not be incorrect.
empire is basically late 16 early 17th century german with a little bit mix in between. that's why we got traditional knight with gothic plates and sallet along with crossbowman, but in other hand we also had pistolier and musketeer. steam tank is cool tho.
Very good explanation and interesting video. I'm not entirely sure what it is but something about David's delivery makes it far more interesting to listen to.
Mount&Blade: Fire And Sword. best middle point between medieval tactics and modern firearms. some would argue Napoleon would be better at that, but Napoleon was online only..... F&S still has a campaign.
@@ohthreefiftyone There is actually a mod for WFAS, set in the english civil war. It has artillery, and I think the ai pikemen move in close formation.
I find it quite amusing that some ECW enthusiasts will still claim the rapier was only a civilian and duelling weapon and was never used on the battlefield. For a well trained swordman, it was highly effective against the heavier backswords and sabres primarily because of its speed and reach. They will also contest the definition of a rapier which for me is anything less than 25mm blade width (like the ones displayed in RA). Great presentation though, well done.
I think people woukd be surprised at how well many rapier do against back swords. They are NOT as light as one would think. Technically they wiegh about the same, the difference is blade geometry & mass distribution.
2 Questions: 1) If everybody wore at least a buffcoat, then what´s the point of a broadsword? I bet that at least from horseback, they did cut through it. 2) how does the buffcoat compare to a gambesson? Why did they change to the buffcoat?
@@habe1717 Actually, you do. Swords are not that top-heavy, with a few exceptions like Viking era swords or executioners swords. With some swords you can break ribs or the collar bone without cutting through e.g. mail, but that is not good enough as it might not stop the opponent. Moreover, most swords just fail to break bones as they are more agile cutting weapons.
Something I've read about the armor of the time is that, while the armor would indeed be proofed against pistols, it proved to be impossible to be bulletproof against a full on musket. It's semantics really, but it's one thing that made a world of difference and (at least for my takeaway from what I've read) was a key reason why armor continued to decline in the renaissance, Also, as someone else commented already, they didn't have flintlocks at the time, but matchlocks and wheellock pistols, the latter of which I would greatly appreciate a video in covering if I can ever find one, Splendid video, overall, though. Thanks for making it and sharing!
It will still had likely stop a musket ball at extended ranges. A typical musket round ball loses about 40% of its kinetic energy at a range of 50 meters. Only the heaviest muskets at the time (+.80 caliber) could had reliably penetrate the best proofed armour beyond 50 meters, but they in turn were heavy and slower to load compare to their more prevalent arquebuse counterparts. Personally, I think the proliferation of field artillery during the 17th century probably had more to with the demise of heavily armoured cavalry. Massed concentrated formations of armoured horsemen became especially vulnerable to well-placed and coordinated field guns that could disrupt or block their charges at ranges well beyond a musket or crossbow. Even more so with the introduction of grapeshot.
The secret is such a great idea that it still exists to this day. A lot of blue collar jobs issue branded ball caps as part of their uniform, a lot of workmen add polypropylene secrets to their ball caps to avoid silly head injuries that could cause a needless loss in wages or insurance claim (raising premiums with each claim). Some companies have started buying their uniform caps with secrets already installed.
We’re flintlocks very common during the ECW? Perhaps more so on pistols then on long guns? Also, was the armor bullet proof against only the pistols? A lot more velocity in that ball coming from a longer barrel.
The presenter is the epitome of "the right man for the job."
Hence the reason why he got the job.
I thought exactly the same
Agreed.🇬🇧
He clearly is loving his job.
I have to wonder if his accent is fake, not like completely faked, but like the way and American would fake an accent from Texas while doing a showing at the Alamo museum, that sort of thing. Either way, he does a marvelous job of it.
I want this guy as my history teacher
This channel is full of inaccuracies and sensationalism, unfortunately.
Im a history teacher. I kind of teach like this. I tell stories, move around the room reenacting, use pictures, and use videos. What do I get from my class in return? Sleeping or random questions about if I play Fortnite or saw the latest Marvel movie. Sometimes you just cant win.
Knut Blix As a history student, it was teachers like you that truly interested me in the subject. Can't thank people like you enough, keep doing what you're doing.
@@TheManFromVault11 Think about your comment.
@@knutblix257 Marvel movies are cool tho, but f*ck fortnight and these uninterested c*nts on phones.
As a Swedish museum curator I can only say - a brilliant show. Such museum educators are worth gold.
Do you know any good places to learn about the Carolean rapier? A good website perhaps?
I have visited the Army Museum in Stockholm which was excellent. I live in the UK but still not been to the Royal Armouries in Leeds.
I find it hilarious that people were willing to risk their lives just to look fly
Soldiers would do a lot of things we normal people would find strange, remember that a soldiers life was 98% marching, being bored and being tried) That small skull cap and hat weighs a lot less than the lobster tail helmet, and unlike the helmet the cap is easy to put in your knapsack when not in battle.
Soldiers would strip all "uneseracry" weight(except plunder)
In 1705 the Dutch reintroduced the cuirass for their cavalry, yet the troopers hated it, it was uncomfortable, it got hot in the summer and weighed a lot, so the Dutch troopers kept "misplacing them" using them as cookware etc, the possible protection the cuirass gave them was not big enough for them to be willing to shlep them around.
People have been risking their lives to look good, for as long as there have been fashions to follow. About a hundred years after this, people would powder their faces with white lead, which is highly poisonous, a hundred years after that women would crush themselves with corsettes that squeezed their internal organs and today we have people starving themselves and injecting neurotoxins into their faces to look good. Hell, for hundreds of years, Chinese women litterally broke their feet and mangled them, because a previous emperor had a fetish for women with small feet. Wearing your flashy ostritch feather hat into battle is nothing, at least these guys had SOME protection under them.
weldonwin a little skill cap like that looks like it would do actual shit against anything
Being able to slay peasants on the battlefield is not worth much if you can't slay pussy afterwards.
* Laughs in Gustavus Adolphus *
Who is the guy who's speaking? He presents it really well and this 9 minute video feels way too short. :)
I know, right? Should at least go over 10 minutes mark
how long is the entire tour?
looks like the guy from "the terror"
He's Youngdybeige
The Royal Armoury hearted the comment, but didn't answer the question lol.
Young lindybeige? Is that you?
He definitely has the same nack for acting things out. Him and Lloyd are very similar indeed !!!
Joe Garingan They even look similar from the right angle
The cloning project is clearly progressing well
Well, the English Civil War *was* a long time ago. Frankly, it's impressive how well he has held up since then.
Lloyd's Illigitemate son?
This guy is basically a younger Lindybeige, and i love it.
Something to note, however, is that medieval plate armour did actually protect against firearms... just not to the same degree. Hand-held firearms of the late medieval era were less powerful than Civil War-era firearms, so medieval armour was moreorless able to withstand contemporary firearms - especially at long-range. It wasn't invincible, sure, but tests have been done which show that reproduction late-medieval plate armour can actually withstand some types of modern firearm (such as certain kinds of handgun).
After the medieval period, armour simply adapted to keep up with the development of firearms. There wasn't a sudden rush to replace "obsolete" 15th century plate. As firearms became more fearsome, plate armour became gradually thicker to resist them. This is also why Civil War-era plate didn't cover the entire body; the armour weighed more, and there's only so much weight a person can wear and still be combat-effective. Omitting lower leg armour was a weight-saving measure, as protecting the shins was not considered a priority.
Incidentally, this is why riding boots came to exist. After plate armour for the lower legs was phased out during this period, cavalrymen took to wearing taller leather boots, as leather provides some level of protection for the shins without piling on the pounds.
The main reason why medieval-style plate armour fell out of use was mentioned in this video; people could not afford the expense. Plate armour was the height of medieval military technology (and so was extremely effective), but with the end of the Feudal System and the increasing reliance on lowly professional soldiers, the concept of the "noble knight" simply became antiquated. Because most professional soldiers could not afford a suit of plate armour (which cost the same as an expensive house), tactics changed to focus on larger formations of more uniform, disciplined troops. This lead to the era of "pike and shot", where infantry soldiers wielded polearms and firearms in large, dense units - both of which could cause knights a lot of grief.
Compared with these more streamlined and efficient types of military unit, employing small groups of hyper-elite, melee-oriented cavalry (who only fought when they could be persuaded to) became prohibitively expensive, not to mention tactically impotent. The states of Europe focused instead on building professional armies in the style we know today.
Sorry, i just get really into this. ;-;
Grymbaldknight thanks for the info
This guy needs to make his own RUclips channel. He could make a good bit of coin with his superb presentation skills and enthusiasm.
I agree
Love the humor while imparting historical background facts that are really worth knowing when one reads accounts of the military actions in the English Civil Wars. GREAT job!!!
1:21
My man just had that shit stowed away on the ready.
Thank you for these little snippets of the vast collection! It is wonderful to see such priceless historical arms and armour, and to learn about their history.
You're very welcome. Thank you for your support!
@@RoyalArmouries I have a question: How much of this stuff is Authentic (as in Original) and How much of this stuff is reproduction ? As a lot of stuff hasn't survived the English Civil war/ Just curious
"Would that protect the soldiers from the Aztec primitive obsidian rock 🪨 and wooden stone 🪨 age weapons?" 🔫
"Or the bronze 🥉 age weapons 🔫 of the Incas?"
outstanding presentation, I could listen to this guy all day! Natural talent, I wouldn't be surprised if he had stage experience.
he legit does little performances in the museum, he's really good at them
Making education fun like this means people learn more, great video.
This dude deserves his own museum.
4:40 *ABSOLUTELY G O R G E O U S*
National disgrace in the U.K. we refuse to educate our youth on their own history. This is a topic that never enters the curriculum. We need more of this 👍
How do you know what is and isn't taught in history class in England??
@@leod-sigefast It’s not on any of the national curriculum haha you can literally look it up. Also I’m early 30s was never taught it. Have younger cousins all going through school none of them have a clue about it. How do you know it’s being taught in schools then divvy ?
1:26 When you and the lads are riding through East Anglia looking for witches to hang when some bloke comes up to you and says “God save King Charles”
The wojak just completes this comment.
Educational and entertaining, this guy is a star. Fantastic delivery.
Been to Leeds Armoury twice this year, looking forward to a 2018 visit. Fantastic place.
Some of the Outstaions such as Fort Nelson are far better.
Not too bad for 10 minutes. The enemy general was actually a colonel of the Parlementarian army, Sir Arthur Haselrigge. He led a regiment of cuirassiers known as Haselrigge's Lobsters. The battle where he was shot by Atkins (and others) was Roundway Down, 13th of July, 1643. The flintlock was better known as a firelock at this early stage of it's development. In the 1640's it would have been the very latest thing & quite expensive.
What a superb presentation, this young chap you can tell loves his job and the energy he gives off is incredible. Well done 👏🏻
i love how he refured to the musket ball as a Malteser to help most people imagine the size of a round.
I'm the other side of the world (New Zealand), but have gone quite out my way to visit the leeds Armoury, its very impressive. It was ironic however that there was a exhibition of The Lord of the Rings weaponry there which I have already seen in my home town.
i cant tell if this guy is a history teacher or lord flashheart after he calmed down a bit
Ha ha ha ha punches you in the face
I thought I was an ECW nerd but even I learned some new things, excellent video, thank you!
I'd love to know what were the specifically British caracteristics of this equipment compared to, let's say its Habsburg, Dutch or French counterparts of the same period.
I'm not sure there's much that was specifically British as quite a few of the officers involved had experience from fighting on the continent and brought all of that knowledge back with them.
They were all rather similar. Differences can usually be attributed to Puritan focuses on modesty. So straighter collars, less intricate designs, that sort of thing.
He really reminds me of Adam Nagaitis' "Cornelius Hickey" from the TV show The Terror. Except his voice is a bit higher.
Yes exactly! I was even speculating if its him.
I just finished watching the terror and I was wondering why he looked familiar.
Yes! I clicked on it thinking he might have been hired for re-enactments lol
To the people talking about the loading of firearms:
A lot of people are referring to how he mentioned you load, 'powder, ball, wad', & a lot of people seem to be upset by this, let me explain a little bit. During the English Civil War soldiers using flintlocks, snaplocks, snaphaunce, doglocks, miquelete locks, wheellocks, arquebuses, (other like-terms), etc. For the sake of convenience, we'll call them firelocks. I don't think necessarily had pre-made / rolled cartridges like they would've had during the American Revolutionary War, or Napoleonic Wars. They didn't really have cartridge boxes like you'd see during those time periods. Instead, soldiers of the time often relied on carrying loose balls, & had a bandolier that carried pre-measured black powder charges that they'd pour down the barrel of their firelock. They'd then typically use a powder horn / flask to prime the pan of the firelock, then give fire. Pre-rolled / made cartridges sort of negated this, & only the rifle regiments really used powder flasks. With a premade cartridge, I can bite, prime with a little powder, pour down the muzzle, then paper, & remaining shot, I can smash down with the ramrod, thus creating a double seal that would help the round travel. Now, I'm not saying that this guy isn't right, but logically speaking, armies of the time period weren't concerned with superb accuracy, it was about volume of fire. Adding wads means more steps which means more time. Armies just wanted a mass wall of lead flying towards their enemy. Your average soldier wasn't a marksman. Also if you notice, he's referring to a pistol, specifically cuirassiers using pistols, & pistols were only effective at close range, & cuirassiers were practically planting the pistol on people's chests, one of the reasons they probably didn't do the powder, wad, ball method was 'cause with a wad on the outside, you're less likely to have the ball roll out of the barrel while it's holstered, or while you're galloping around. So maybe this guy didn't know exactly what he was talking about, maybe he forgot a step, perhaps he was right, & we just had the wrong idea. If you don't believe me, look at some examples of cannons, they'd do double wadding even after the shell or round ball was placed, double sealing, & it means that your round isn't gonna' necessarily roll out. A lot of the times wads were waxed too. The 95th Regiment of Rifles explains that they used both loose balls, loose patches, & a powder flask, for when they need to make really accurate shots, & then they also carried pre-rolled ammunition for faster reloading purposes, & firing in formation. This way they could be utilized as formation units, & skirmishers. A lot of you that shoot modern black powder do so for hunting or target practice, not for war (obviously), with that said, you're not doing a lot of running, or tilting your musket or rifle barrel down where the ball could potentially slide out. So simply powder, wad, ball works in that case. But really, you'd ideally want, powder, wad, ball, wad, of some sort; which is why the pre-made rounds were the way they were. You bit the end, poured the powder in the priming pan, & then down the barrel, then stuffed the rest in the barrel. Spit tapping is a whole other thing, & could be potentially dangerous; however, it is faster, & has been proven to work.
Or you could use the Richard Sharpe method - spit the ball into the muzzle and tap once - it should be accurate to about 800 yards.
I've been to this Museum in Leeds, it is well worth the visit and there are endless exhibits to look at.
Love transitional periods in history. Armor had to get heavier to protect from muskets which in turn made it impractical and expensive. Muskets themselves increasingly replaced archers as it is much faster to train in firearms than archery and therefore cheaper to replace. Fascinating stuff
I once accompanied my friend, who was a historian, and they were showing off a new piece they had acquired. It was a used Reiter's cuirass with numerous dents made by musket balls from pistols. And I noticed the dents were made deeper and deeper the closer it got to the chest, and I kept thinking to myself "Man they must have hated this guy to focus on him so much." Then as if right on cue they revealed the rest of the plate showing a massive dent on where the calf would be. Apparently even *God* hated him because he didn't die to a musket ball no, he was knocked from his horse, and the stirrup caused him to get stuck and the horse's hoof crashed into his calf paralyzing him till he died of blood lost and shock.
Moral of the story: Armor isn't worth shit, if you have the luck of a Frenchman in an English pub. That or King Charles in a pub with Oliver Cromwell. That or one of Henry VIII's wives when he fancies another lass.
Augustus Borgia I just disagree about the idea that armor is useless. If that so, why u think those military engineers, from ancient time to nowadays, had invested unaccountable ideas and time for improving protection gears ? (they were many armors used in US civil war and WW1, also both Japan and Korean developed first modern bullet resistant armor by using 30 layers of silk fabric).
If u try to keep yourself safe then don't go into battle at all. Armors is designed for against specific threat rather than providing some sorts of holy shield for wearers. Even 10% survivability is better than nothing at all.
@@crusaderzero3984 The moral of the story is, no matter how much you armor yourself, if your luck is bad, just stay at home.
Brilliant presentation, entertaining, informative, and clear as the proverbial bell! I'm aging and having trouble hearing/understanding most dialog in television programs and need to use the closed captioning most of the time, but I didn't have a single issue with this fellow's presentation. Thank you. :)
I love this guy, he's like an English Garand Thumb. He's got all the same mannerisms.
SMLE Thumb
Ladies, Gentlemen and my often forgotten but not by me Peruvian FADs
The comment section is a plague... why don’t you go down there and find out why
Its mad to think that guys with suits of armour and swords were sharing the same battlefield as musketmen.
I want your job, can we get an hbo series about the english civil war plz? Maybe include some cossacks and ottoman pirates and winged hussars while ur at it?
As a tour guide myself i can say that this guy is very good, enthusiasm and engagement is the key always
This is clearly a man who loves his job. Wish all teachers were like this
Can we get more of this guy? He's great!
3:07 whoever that armor set was made for was an absolute *unit*
who knew bullet proof was such an old concept and it actually makes sense that we use that word combo today
It's amazing how even in the face of death and battle, many men thought "I should look good for this".
Just found this video.
The presenter was fantastic.
Full of information with humour thrown in to keep one's attention.
Reminds me of the actor who plays Cornelius in The Terror.
8:45 As it happens, rapiers WERE quite heavy (especially the military ones which were less sporty). A typical rapier weighs 3 pounds. The center of gravity is close to your hand, so they _feel_ quite light and handy; but a rapier can certainly parry a backsword, sabre, or other such cutting sword. They're also very stiff in spite of being slender.
NOTE: This is not my account, it's my little brothers, & I was too lazy to log into mine. I'd also like to point out that I'm merely clarifying & elaborating on what you've already said & by no means am arguing with you; only agreeing.
I perfectly understand what you're saying with regards to the rapier, & the myth that they were 'light'; however, three pounds is pretty normal for one handed swords of Western design. For instance, the medieval arming sword typically weighed around three pounds (give or take a pound depending on the specifications of the sword altogether: hilt, blade, pommel, guard, etc.). So I wouldn't say they were heavy, per se, but they definitely weren't as light as modern fencing foils are. Yes, the center of gravity was close to your hand, this gave the rapier more point control, along with the ricasso which allowed for greater grip strength and torque. The blade itself was typically kept razor sharp for push and draw cuts, & while the blade was primarily used for thrusting, it could just as easily entertain light slashes with the lower third towards the tip of the blade. The rapier in itself was definitely not a hacking weapon, although slapping with the spine of the blade could prove fatal or give injury as it's still by all means a metal rod. I'd also like to confirm that they can, indeed, parry & / or block the blades you've mentioned, but all of this also comes down to the swordsmen as an individual & their respective training with 'said weapon'. I'd also like to mention that although rapiers were seen on the battlefield, & sometimes used, they were typically used for not only dueling, but fashion as well. The longer the rapier, combined with how low it was worn on the individual discerned how fashionable the user was. There were such things as 'war rapiers' which are pretty synonymous with the term 'sidesword' which was the precursor to the rapier. (Personally I prefer this weapon as it is like an arming sword with a rapier's hilt). Rapiers eventually evolved into court swords, & other weapons alike.
I like your english accent for pronouncing french words. Its like watching hollywood trying to pronounce french accents xD
I have visited this place twice...
I love it!
16th and 17th century man outfit is cool
Excellent presentation. When Iwas in Graz, Austria, I visited the Armory to get a look at the world class displays there. The vast majority of the collection was from this era, and represented arms and armor that was used in the Hapsburg-Ottoman Wars. I saw the proofing dimples on a lot of pieces that were obviosly not for the common footman. Very ornate and beautifully made. There were other sets by the hundreds from arsenal storage that were issued to men in time of need. All manner of arms and accoutrements. Quite a few cuirasses had been repaired, which indicated they were not bullet proof. The holes had been peened shut and some kind of solder work filled the fracturing. Pity the poor man who used it last.
Another interesting thing was that there were several full panoplies made for very tall men - well over 6 feet tall. These were for heavy knights, whom I believe would have been the equivalent of todays super athletes. Most of the more common arsenal issued gear looked like it would fit a boy of 13. Then, I considered the swords, axes, and pole arms and thought, "any 13 yearold today who could handle those weapons would be a freak of nature." Those men may have only been 5'8", but they must have been very stout.
Very entertaining and simply superb! Enjoyed it so much I've subscribed. One correction; it is, "this armour" not, "these armours". Armour is an irregular noun and maintains its original form even when plural.
Are you sure? I've wondered about this myself cos Metatron also says "armours" and although he's not a native speaker, he is an English language nerd, and often those who have to learn a foreign language can pick up on points we native speakers miss. So, although as a native speaker "armours" grates, I think, when speaking about different types of armour from a technical point of view, "armours" might not be incorrect.
It largely depends on the context. If you’re referring to several suits of armor, you can say “armors”
That was an amazing presentation. It’s a pleasure to watch someone who really enjoys their work.
Thank you David. Very Interesting. God Bless 😊
Honestly I watched this because I wanted to see what kinda weapons early American colonists may have used. Great presentation 👍
If I ever visit the UK, this would be one of my destinations
By about 1650, armor and also nobility was in its last days.
So it's cool to see what that looks like.
Splendid show !
Great but I wish you'd distinguished between muskets and pistols.
Boy I can't get away from the feeling that he is Mr Hickey from Terror xD
Brilliantly performed
I wish I'd known about this as I love the English civil war era and this type of history. I live in Leeds also..
How have I not found this channel before now? This video is amazingly well done and the presenter is so engaging!
Warhammer Fantasy Battle Empire in a nutshell.
empire is basically late 16 early 17th century german with a little bit mix in between. that's why we got traditional knight with gothic plates and sallet along with crossbowman, but in other hand we also had pistolier and musketeer. steam tank is cool tho.
Are there any interesting articles or resources about “secrets”? seems really interesting.
this is a great video!!! for some reason i have never read anything on the English civil war so all of these weapons and armor are new to me!!!
I like this guy
Thanks for the update. I thought they still used wheel lock pistols in the 1640's rather than flintlocks.
Please make more videos like these.
Very good explanation and interesting video. I'm not entirely sure what it is but something about David's delivery makes it far more interesting to listen to.
I met this guy when I was there! Gotta check out the pistol and rapier. Love this kinda stuff
This guy is pure talent. Salute!
Why not load first then prime, like any sane person? And the wading typically goes between the powder and projectile.
Excellent presentation.
As with every piece of tech it all has it's strengths and weaknesses and he is very good at explaining them.
Thanks Aviator.
Mount&Blade: Fire And Sword.
best middle point between medieval tactics and modern firearms.
some would argue Napoleon would be better at that, but Napoleon was online only..... F&S still has a campaign.
@@ohthreefiftyone There is actually a mod for WFAS, set in the english civil war. It has artillery, and I think the ai pikemen move in close formation.
Great video
I wish he had been my history teacher at school. Really well told
Great presentation! Wish we had something similar in our war and archaeological museums
I'd love to do that for a living.
0:26 That skull flag with the flames looks badass ngl.
I find it quite amusing that some ECW enthusiasts will still claim the rapier was only a civilian and duelling weapon and was never used on the battlefield. For a well trained swordman, it was highly effective against the heavier backswords and sabres primarily because of its speed and reach. They will also contest the definition of a rapier which for me is anything less than 25mm blade width (like the ones displayed in RA). Great presentation though, well done.
For the truly skilled, it's perfect for getting between armor plates!
I think people woukd be surprised at how well many rapier do against back swords. They are NOT as light as one would think. Technically they wiegh about the same, the difference is blade geometry & mass distribution.
This is the only clip on RUclips I've ever found that describes the correct way to use a ramrod!
then you havent looked at many vids
I've looked a lot, and invaribly the Muppet puts his palm over the ram rod.
Quick way to a perforated hand!
I think the put the wading in the wrong order though. :/
I thought that was Lindybeige in the thumbnail
2 Questions:
1) If everybody wore at least a buffcoat, then what´s the point of a broadsword? I bet that at least from horseback, they did cut through it.
2) how does the buffcoat compare to a gambesson? Why did they change to the buffcoat?
You don't need to cut through to do terrible damage
@@habe1717 Actually, you do. Swords are not that top-heavy, with a few exceptions like Viking era swords or executioners swords. With some swords you can break ribs or the collar bone without cutting through e.g. mail, but that is not good enough as it might not stop the opponent. Moreover, most swords just fail to break bones as they are more agile cutting weapons.
Great demonstration and speaker. Thank you.
I was looking for The Clash song and ended up here finding that the bad guy from The Terror S1 is also a guide for some british museum.
Something I've read about the armor of the time is that, while the armor would indeed be proofed against pistols, it proved to be impossible to be bulletproof against a full on musket. It's semantics really, but it's one thing that made a world of difference and (at least for my takeaway from what I've read) was a key reason why armor continued to decline in the renaissance, Also, as someone else commented already, they didn't have flintlocks at the time, but matchlocks and wheellock pistols, the latter of which I would greatly appreciate a video in covering if I can ever find one,
Splendid video, overall, though. Thanks for making it and sharing!
It will still had likely stop a musket ball at extended ranges. A typical musket round ball loses about 40% of its kinetic energy at a range of 50 meters. Only the heaviest muskets at the time (+.80 caliber) could had reliably penetrate the best proofed armour beyond 50 meters, but they in turn were heavy and slower to load compare to their more prevalent arquebuse counterparts. Personally, I think the proliferation of field artillery during the 17th century probably had more to with the demise of heavily armoured cavalry. Massed concentrated formations of armoured horsemen became especially vulnerable to well-placed and coordinated field guns that could disrupt or block their charges at ranges well beyond a musket or crossbow. Even more so with the introduction of grapeshot.
What an excellent talk! Very well done to the guide 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
What wonderful presentation. Sir, I thank you.
That was a fantastic overview my friend. You are a natural.
Great Plauge & Fires of London. 1665, 1666.
I actually have a 1640 Lobster tail helmet in beautiful condition. Has a sword dent on top. Made in the Tower of London in 1640.
This was such an interesting time in history.
First rate historian. I'm American, but know that several of my ancestors fought in The English Civil War.
Fantastic
"Weighs 5 to 7 stone" Or 70 lbs. to 98 lbs. 1 stone = 14 pounds.
Wow the ending of the video escalates quickly. From English Civil War Cavalry equipment to "Christmas is Canceled".
The secret is such a great idea that it still exists to this day. A lot of blue collar jobs issue branded ball caps as part of their uniform, a lot of workmen add polypropylene secrets to their ball caps to avoid silly head injuries that could cause a needless loss in wages or insurance claim (raising premiums with each claim). Some companies have started buying their uniform caps with secrets already installed.
We’re flintlocks very common during the ECW? Perhaps more so on pistols then on long guns? Also, was the armor bullet proof against only the pistols? A lot more velocity in that ball coming from a longer barrel.
the wadding should be between the powder and the ball if i'm not mistaken
Is he the guy that plays that weasel in the show Terror?