Well said, I more or less agree. Additional factors would include cost, availability of materials, construction time and skill required, maintenance needed, weather resistance and so on. "Level of protection" seems to only become more of a difference when you start going beyond muscle strength as a limiting factor, as with loading levers and winches for crossbows, and with firearms as you mentioned.
Pretty sharp, Malcolm. The advantages also should be considered: wooden and/or hide armor is immune to horse sweat. Mail auto-articulates and hence can be made with no gaps (at all). Etc., etc.
A much more accurate summation of armor. One aspect that is mostly ignored in video and tabletop games is that the primary drawback of any armor is how fucking hot it makes you. How much you sweat in it, how much heat you can release in it, how hot it gets to the touch when you're marching or fighting all day. Exhaustion and stamina mechanics are boring and rarely implemented but are literally critical to how actual human beings function and fight. I greatly enjoy the Emberverse novels by SM Stirling, but in one of the later ones, the characters wear late medieval plate harness in the Pacific islands while fighting. They mention how hot and sweaty they are several times, but this was pretty much nonsense. You would be gassed and suffering heat stroke VERY quickly encased in steel plate in a tropical environment. There are very good reason people of different climates dress and armor themselves the way that they do; because they are adapted to their context. The reason they are so heavily armored compared to the people they're fighting is because they should have keeled over dying of heatstroke already in reality. Mail reaches across Eurasia and Africa because it is a very versatile style of armor. Simple but laborious to produce, it's inherently flexible which is useful for wearing and storage but crucially also means it's inherently one size fits all. Like all articles of clothing with that dubious distinction, it isn't really true but it is generally true. One person can hand down a mail hauberk to the next generation and it will most likely fit acceptably. You can strip it off a dead man and get yourself a new gambeson and now you're much better equipped. Very versatile. It also, critically, is full of holes. Which means you get airflow through it, cooling you and drying your clothing underneath, and letting your body heat escape. It is much more suitable for hot climates than plate is. It can also be made much more rigid, shoring up it's great weak point, by including splints or plates into the mail patterns.
I’ve worn mail and a gambeson and I think the quilted padding stops any air flow that might come through the holes. I think the cooling benefits of mail probably come from having some of your legs and arms bear to dissipate the heat. Just a thought but possibly plate feels hotter because being one piece of metal it retains heat like an iron pan and not because it blocks airflow.
Case in point: Anglo-French Crusaders lost 60 men in a day to heat stroke and exhaustion during the Barbary Crusader of 1390. Their Hafsid Berber opponents, who were armoured only in rawhide, ran rings around them while waiting for the sun to kill them. Mail's primary advantage over plate in hot environments like Saharan Africa has less to do with it being cooler, and more to do with it being quick to take on and off. Most African soldiers won't wear their armour on the march, instead donning it right before the battle, and then taking it off immediately after. You can shrug in or out of a mail coat fairly quickly, while plate armour requires minutes or more to get into or out of--minutes you may not have in an ambush, or when the battle is over and heatstroke is rapidly creeping up on you.
this is a very intresting thought. (i found your channel last Sunday, and binge watched all the armor videos, and shared them around. wooden armor is so facilitating, and discovering it even existed in the eastern US was quite the surprise to me. back when i researched it for a fantasy novel i was writing, there was basically nothing on the internet about it's effectiveness or use)
I have never seen any depiction of armor that I found especially complex or interesting. The ideas youve posited would make interacting with armor a much more compelling and grounded experience. Good thought.
The continued use of an armour shows that it was judged to be effective in there role, perfect no but it had to give a warrior a real benefit worth its weight and cost. When a better armour comes along we do see a rapid switch to it. In Europe Scale armour was widely pushed out of use by mail armour, not because mail is cheaper to make or more protective but because mail is better fitted to that economic environment's iron supply.
Could you elaborate on that? Specifically, how did the iron supply make mail preferable to scale armour if neither armour was cheaper to produce than the other?
I am developing a video game where different characters can be equipped by a combination of armor pieces and this video gave me quite a few ideas about how to differentiate the pieces, thank you.
Resistance to damage is a good way to frame it. A material that has qualities that permit it to resist being cut or slashed inherently make it more prone to blunt force or piercing. The focus should definitely be on the material and it's qualities. Chainmail is good against slashes and blunt force, and remarkably bad at absorbing stabs and piercing attacks. Qualities woven armor like brigandines, or plate mail make up for. It's a large reason for why many maces ended up with flanges and spikes at the sides - to combine the benefits of multiple damage types against heavily armored opponents. Axes were too rounded with a ) shape, so maces could be made with a } shape, as that point allowed the weight and mass of the club the benefits of piercing with a sharper point
I think you're conflating a false dichotomy there. A thing that is good at resisting being cut is not inherently bad at resisting blunt force impacts or piercing damage. A rounded, bowled shaped plate is excellent at all of this. You can't easily if at all cut hardened steel with a blade, piercing attacks are likely to simply glance and scratch the finish, and the curvature is inherently great at spreading out and redistributing force. Fine, very high quality silk, if thick enough, is also pretty decent at all of this. Just super expensive. Sort of like a thick nylon/kevlar/aramid flak jacket. Probably won't stop a rifle-caliber bullet at close ranges (which is why we use hardened steel or hard ceramic plates to stop very high speed objects), but it's pretty damn cut and stab resistant to blades, and high speed but rather larger and not aerodynamic fragments of metal, and its thickness makes it pretty good at blunt force as well. Also, flanges, knobs and so on, on maces, aren't really typically there to try to pierce plate completely, but are there to help the thing "catch" or "grab" onto the steel a bit better so that more force gets transferred, as opposed to glancing off, which is what any half-decent metal armor wants to do; redirect.
I think the main point about plate armor and why its so good is that it glances incoming strikes off which means that alot which means that less energy from the blow is going to your body. Other types of armor is not going to glance blows away from you as much as plate armor. So if a hit is coming straight on and all the energy is going into you then yes, it probably doesnt matter that much what the actual type of the armor is as long as it has the same stopping force and cushioning. However in real combat the majority of the blows are not hitting you straight on, so wearing plate armor would be an advantage since it will automatically deflect the blow.
In video game terms: pierce armor/slash armor/blunt armor // and then you can add environmental penalties like "easily set ablaze" like fiber or "can rust" for metal or "will attract hungry animals" like leather
With the exception of rust, those penalties aren't terribly realistic. A gambeson won't cause a man to suddenly combust as if he's doused in kerosene, and I doubt a hungry animal would be attracted to the smell of treated leather.
3.5 had max dex, Skill malus, (can't have more than x AC points from your dex modifier) you could deploy it almost as is in 2e eg. no max dex for padded, -2 max dex and -25% on impacted Skills for chainmail, -1 max dex and -30% for plate... if survival is a mechanic, maybe a malus on saves against extreme heat or fatigue
I was just watching a video about LARP and the one thing that was mentioned even for just role players was comfort. No point in buying a full set of armor if it will be uncomfortable, better to start with the cuirass and add on to it as you level up. I enjoy that you go into these studies and breakdown theories about it.
Crazy to think that even cultures who didn't have access to steel in sufficient volumes (Japan, American Indians) still developed heavy armor that could defend from war bows using bamboo or wood. Reminds me of the horo, a short-lived invention that could stop arrows from striking Samurai in their backs, and all it was made from was a few layers of silk pulled over a frame. ruclips.net/video/DAKHHasyjUE/видео.html
A further aspect to consider by a commander of forces is to choose armor that is appropriate for conditions of the moment. Ex. Battle of Agincourt 1415 where heavily armored French troops, with otherwise overwhelming numbers, were thoroughly crushed by England's nearly unarmored forces because they could maneuver in the muddy terrain of the battlefield whereas French forces were completely bogged down. This is the reason too for modern day forces to stash all but their most necessary equipment - including body armor - then stealthily advance to do battle, a particularly good tactic in hot, densely covered terrain. As per your earlier discussions, I can imagine even light wooden armor providing an advantage in most open field battles but of little use when used in ambush or rapid assaults on unsuspecting foes. *** Very much enjoying your perspectives shared here!
I think you're correct to say a lot of people incorrectly see armor advances as a nice linear progression of protection like a video game but i also think you're skirting around the correct conclusion too. Protection is always paid for. In weight, in materials, in wealth, in comfort, in flexibility whatever. But different types of armor have different costs in each field and those costs can be an objectively better deal. If the amount of textile armor you'd have to wear to get the same protection as a plate harness isn't feasible to wear, the plate is more protective, in pretty much every normal way to use the phrase. If there isnt an implied "for a given cost" or "all else being equal", then the phrase "as protective" loses all meaning - cotton candy is as protective as modern body armor because enough of it will stop a bullet (an example in absurdity ofc) And protection did progress. A 16th century knight is objectively better protected than a 12th century one. Still a valuable lens and a good thought provoking video, but i feel the conclusion is pushed too far and/or misses the best possible framing.
Love the channel and appreciate the thought. Though armor did reach it's pinnacle in renisaunce europe due to it's supierior protection. Even then it's astounding to see the various ways diffrent cultures created armors to address their needs. In the end the human body is a control across the board and it's amazing to see what people come up with. I do have to say most wooden armors were not very impressive or intresting to me, but the style of the Iroquois wooden armor you recreated was astounding. It in many ways I hypothesize will be supirior to many forms of armor. Wonder what the Iroquois would've created had they had access to metal.
I think you're right that every culture quickly figures out how to stop arrow and sling fire with some kind of simple armor. However, in the particular case of plate mail, it evolved more in response to a steel sword rather than arrow fire. It's true that some features in the shaping were designed to deflect arrow fire but these were more to keep it "backwards compatible" and still deflect arrows while also stopping sword blows. We see the corollary evolution of weapons alongside armor, like how the poleaxe was invented to combat plate mail. In other-words since arrow fire's effectiveness tops out due to the maximum strength of the user (with some minor differences in material properties) the variation in armor is more in response to changes in hand to hand weaponry and tactics than ranged fire. This is of course until the introduction of the gun when ranged fire becomes so deadly that hand to hand stops being relevant.
I mostly agree, but I would make the case that different types of armor can be more or less protective against different types of attacks. For example, chainmail armor is effectively impenetrable by slashing weapons but does not give a high level of protection against blunt impacts even when worn over padded textiles. Compared to lamellar or plate armors, which have quite a bit of protection from blunt impacts and textile armors which are much more vulnerable to slashing cuts. And since there is a functional upper limit to the weight of armor, materials that give better protection for weight (e.g. plate vs chain) allow more of the body to be effectively protected before becoming overburdened. Like you said, though, it's not a matter of one being "superior." It's about advantages and disadvantages. In a hot climate perhaps it's worth losing some protection if it means you won't overheat as quickly. If you fight in formations, it might make sense to minimize body armor in favor of large shields. Etc. People are innovative by nature... given time, we'll come up with the best solution for our needs and resources. So any armor that was widely used must have been the best for those people at that time.
Very true point, and I agree. Durability is another factor. A steel cuirass is going to be far more durable than wood armor and will last longer if taken care of. The wood armor however is far cheaper and easier to repair once damaged as a skilled armorer will be needed to fix the steel. Number and points to types of armor though doesn't bother me personally since it makes it easy to balance. A + 3 AC mail shirt isn't inherently better than a +4 AC breastplate in real life. But you have to balance out the nuances somehow. Role-playing can take up the rest. The mail armor failed because an arrow managed to breat through the links after an orc beat your AC, the fighter didn't get hurt because the breastplate is solid steel. What games get wron, good imagination and Role-playing can make up for the rest. At least in tabletop rpgs like D&D. That's just my hot take, though. Regardless if armor didn't work, then they wouldn't have used it. Good video as always.
'Protection' (or damage resistance, or armour bonus) 'for a given weight and volume' is probably a better way of describing it, but it does seem like people don't think about that.
So what you're saying is armor values should be determined by the particular combination of pieces being worn at once, with certain debuffs to account for the varous downsides of using certain types of armor (bulky, hot, etc.)
A phrase I've had to repeat a lot when explaining African armours to non-specialists is "if it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it." Because man oh man do you get a lot of reactions to the effect of "this looks like it would have been useless," when you share any sort of non-European armour in certain forums (an experience I'm sure you're only too familiar with). Personally, I share your suspicions that certain configurations that are often dismissed as inferior to full plate, particularly some of the Islamic plated mail armours, were probably pretty comparable in terms of the protection they offered, if for no other reason than that if there was a gap in the protective quality of them, you'd expect European sources on conflicts with the Mamluks or Ottomans to mention it, and they don't.
I think steel plate might have a few things which would make it more protective Like angled armor designed to make strikes glance off the side rather than take the full force of a strike. I think that is a big enough thing to say like it's the same I think I do agree with the idea in this video. But I do think some armors are just more protective.
Yep, I agree. Armour evolved with increases in technology that were forced by improvements in weapons that were themselves responses to improvements in armour. All of those types of armour were used - and worked - until somebody invented something better, and if you could afford that new, improved armour, you used it.
I'm trying to think of a way to apply this thought process to a ttrpg. Maybe instead of an armor score you would merely mark if your character is armored or not with various disadvantages applied due to that armors type. Have a characters ability to hit their target be based on the opponent dodge score and if you are wearing bulky or heavy armor that may decrease your dodge score, then if the target is armored have a simple roll to determine if the armor absorbs the blow or not then damage rolls and so on
Protection power pound, protection per bulk, protection per reduction in movement. I both agree with what you started about bulk and inconvenience, but the same weight of big iron rings is not going to be as protective as the same weight of riveted maille as iron cuts and deforms easier and too large of rings means arrows may ignore it. The same weight of oak is not as good as the same weight of a softwood in a layered Scottish targe as oak has the wrong properties and splinters easily, especially against rifle fire. Fandabadosi (?) just did a video on this topic. In fact maille may not be as important as the padding beneath it against certain arrowsheafs, but better against others. Armor is a complex topic and you are correct to point out that "lesser" materials are not inherently that much inferior. Leather, not padding, should be on the bottom of the list for protection. Bone may well be better than leather, or maybe not, depending on what it faces. Iron, bronze, and steel may also vary based on form and how it is laminated with other materials. Lamination is often key as leather, wool, and wood are generally considered "lower" but laminate then into a shield and it may well do better against musket fire than a steel breastplate as you can angle it against the shot. Very interesting topic
When steel plate was not used, it was due to limited technology (to speak simply). People switched to steel when they could, partly because it decreased their chance of dying in battle. Considering that armored warriors were killed in combat, what does "adequate" mean? There certainly is such a thing as armor which is adequate in more scenarios than another armor. People may well exaggerate the difference in capabilities of various heavy armors, but the way this video is worded certainly overcompensates for any such error. Thanks for sharing your thoughts; as a result, moving forward, I will think more carefully when I consider these matters.
The problem that most people have is that steel is the LIGHTEST armor available in many time periods. Let's say you want to stop 200 joules of force from an axe to the torso with armor that retains structural integrity after the strike. Well either you need roughly 2mm of steel, 2-4mm of iron, probably 5mm plus of rawhide, 20mm of wood or even more, or even an inch plus of cotton. To get the job done of protection steel, iron, or bronze are your only real options if you want a full body suit of armor that isn't comically thick, overweighted, and hideously consumptive of available materials. The whole problem is achieving effective protection is about a kilogram of steel, or ten kilograms of feathers.
armor philosophy is simple. hard material will stop harder material. hard material were costly, so you reduce the amount of hard material used (by chain or plaquettes/lamellar) you still retain the same amount of defence just a different way to go about it.
I agree with you on most of what you said, but I would have to disagree with you on the point of plate metal vs chainmail armor on protection. If I strike a man in the chest with a warhammer while he is wearing plate armor I will have likely knocked the wind out of him, bruised a couple of ribs, and put him on his back. if I did that to a man wearing chainmail and cloth I would have likely broken ribs or even ruptured a organ or two. So maybe they do offer similar levels of protection against arrows, but not so much against blunt force weapons.
@@Scodiddly I don't know about that one. The plate I have worn was very light and flexible compared to the chainmail. One being a 12 century foot man the other a 16th century pike man. But then again reenactment is different from real combat.
I more or less agree, though I would add the caveat that how protective an armour is depends a lot on the damage mechanics of the weapons it’s going up against. As you say hu,an strength is a constant, but certain armour is strong against certain types of weapons and weak against others. Solid armour like plate, lamellar, or wood is going to be harder to thrust through and probably better at resisting blunt weapons (although the gent inside it might not be! Hence why things like maces exist, they essentially bypass armour. Yet, I must admit I’d much rather be wearing plate when I get smacked with one.) and relatively proof against the cut or thrust. Armour is designed to counter weapons and it evolves within specific contexts, so understanding the different weapons armour was intended to counter and the cultural context is also super important when analyzing. As you alluded to, the sort of popular conception of “x armour is better that y armour” is inaccurate, and for something like a RPG armour bonuses should probably stack, as characters are able to add different types of armour on different areas of the body to increase protection. So if cloth armor is a +1, chainmail is a +2, and plate a +3, then your actual protection when putting together those elements would be something like +4 in all but the weak spots in joints where it’d be a +3. Viewed in this context and also with encumbrance and coverage considerations in mind I think you start to see why people used certain types of armour in certain spots with varying levels of protection.
One factor you are not considering here: Strength beyond human capabilities is DEFINITELY a factor before firearms because there is one strength multiplier available since at least bronze age, and that is the horse. Wooden armor may well work against a human's strength, but could it take a lance thrust from a mounted warrior? Food for thought.
Unknown, since most wooden armours develop in places where horses aren't readily available: the Americas most frequently, with some appearances in parts of Asia and tropical Africa. Which of course just goes to the broader point that people build their gear for the threats they're liable to encounter.
It's an arms race. Depends on what you are protecting yourself from. Rock-Paper-Scissors. You should test your wood armor against a steel tipped arrow.
I have. Broadhead and bodkin. 100# bow. As well a steel sword. As well a steel felling axe. And a heavy steel spear. The spear gets though only when it strikes a gap. Everything else is blocked.
I don't know that I would agree. There are huge differences in protection offered by different armours. Plate armour can stop a lot more than wooden armour, mail, gamberson etc and is better at prevent the transfer of force form blunt impacts. Yes, humans are all roughly the same strength but that isn't the limiting factor even before gunpowder, technology still plays a role. It's why steel gets better, swords get pointier and things like pole axes are developed.
I would love to see a video game where your tools, weapons, and armor are reinforced as something that belongs to you and that requires care. Unfortunately this is in opposition to a modern consensus on various things that make games fun. We want you to get to use all of the variety of available weapons, so weapons will be brittle, situational, and constantly breaking or being made obsolete. We want you to get the feeling of progression, of collecting things, and being rewarded for exploration, so one armor set will only get you a certain way through the game before its useless. I'd like to see a game where you have to bang individual dents out of your armor, because its *your* armor and you have to care for it. Maybe these straps are wearing down and I should make some new ones. My sword is getting dull, but rather than throw it away and get a new one, I am incentivized to sharpen it. I think this is relevant to your point about armor as a linear progression, but maybe its just what I happen to have on my mind.
Great video! As a continuation of this thought, what would be a more accurate scaling system than cloth-1, leather-2, mail-5, etc? Maybe each type of armor provides different nerfs/buffs but the same overall protection? Again, great work thanks for your production!
With basic dnd there isn't a good answer beyond reducing armour selection to heavy vs light. This is probably the best way of representing this concept, as adding complexity usually makes rpgs worse. You don't want any rules that slow the game down.
There are always trade offs. Fancy plate armor might have been favored by warriors who didn’t need as much flexibility, such as commanders. Chain mail is much easier to move in, also easier to repair with minimal tools - perhaps better for a foot soldier.
Steel plate was just as mobile as chainmail, a lot of the armor was built with the idea that you had to move around because, you know, the one's wearing it are going to be in a battlefield.
I would only disagree with one part of this video and that is the one about mail armor. Some modern archaeologists and reenactors believe that, at least at some points of time, mail was worn without a gambeson or thick garments beneath. The reason is that the more you want to wear beneath the more rings you need and this makes it significantly heavier + it tends to restrict your movement more than it has to. Especially 12.Century medieval Iconography and book paintings implicate that mail was actually tailored to the Bodyform of it's wearer which would only wear (maybe thick but not nearly as thick as gambeson) cloth beneath it
I can accept that different types of armour may give similar protection against arrows. But against blunt force weapons such as a mace or axe, I think steel plate would be far superior due to it's rigidity.
Axes aren't really blunt force weapons, afaik they don't hit significantly harder than a sword with a comparable weight. Also, I could be wrong here but I would imagine that padded armour would disperse the energy more efficiently than rigid metal, because the fabric would compress and spread the force of the blow across a wider area.
Well yes and no. The thing about the steel plates is sure it's going to stop blunt trauma, however if there is no padding it's going straight through it. Worse still is if it dents and concaves on they wearer. For example a 3lb mace swung in hand will have nowhere near the velocity to penitrate the steel, but they momentum and force can transfer a great deal through it due to the resistance of the material.
Don't forget environmental factors. Full Plate only seemed to work in regions that it's suited in. Full plate wouldn't work well in hot climates or you'd end up roasted alive in your armor.
Games assign values for balance purposes. If a gambeson technically provides as much armour value as, say, a chain shirt, why wear the chain shirt if it's heavier and provides no more armour than a gambeson? Not to mention that while gambesons, chain mail, etc will stop bladed weapons, they don't distribute force like plates will, and thus may not stop damage underneath the skin, or even be able to last against a steady flow of damage like plate can. It would be hard to include that in a game in an engaging way (for most people). TLDR: realism doesn't always make for engaging gameplay.
I disagree as various armour types provide different strengths and weakness in different situations. For example steel plate IS more protective than chainmail (plus gambison) because mail provides almost no protection again blunt force. A mace, war hammer or even a sword could easily break bones through chainmail. However chainmail is more protective because plate armour tends to leave large gaps around joints and articulations whereas the only gaps on a mail hauberk are between the rings. There is a reason every armour type was used. They are effective at what they are made to do but new armour technologies would be invented to address the weaknesses of old armour types.
I think some of your observations are correct whilst some are not. The tests done by "Tod's Workshop" are currently the rolled gold standard of armour testing and theory. No armour works all the time. Armour that works rarely probably would not be worn. Today we see well financed countries suppling their armies with ceramic etc body armour which works sometimes. Whilst poorly financed rebels etc usually wear none. In WW2 American planes had heavy armour surrounding their pilots which made their planes heavier and less agile. Japanese planes had no armour and were very agile. Japanese planes generally had an advantage in the air. American pilots often survived even when the plane was heavily damaged. However the Japanese ran out of experienced pilots. Experience beats agility. To sum up. The use of armour can sometimes be a matter of philosophy/strategy/wealth.
It's as easy to cut wood with an axe as it is a metal plate of the same weight. It's as easy to pierce a cloth gambeson with a rapier as it is chainmail. And the thin straps that hold your armour together are as easy to break independently of what they are holding together. Every armour is better than none and no armour is better than all. It is said a crusader king broke a steel bar with his broad sword in front of an arab king, to show him how screwed they were. And the arab lifted his scimitar and cut a silk napkin by gently dropping it on the blade. Which one's best? None. Both could harm and both their armours could save. Advantages at war depend on leveling more than one stat. You can make improvements, but no material or build is inherently better. After all, mail is better than layered cloth, plate is better than mail, but a bulletproof vest made of layered cloth is often better than both against bullets.
There is something to your hypothesis, but I would disagree specifically about the qualities of maile armor. Maile is elastic, which means it does not restrict your movement much, but it does transfer blunt trauma to the body. Okay, there was so called "double maile" in use, which could stop even a couched lance, but it didn't mean the wearer was left unharmed after absorbing such a blow. Initially they started putting plate *on top* of maile, therefore *adding* weight, just to stop our puny bones from getting fractured. I don't want to write an essay here, so I just summarize that various materials and methods of construction do have their peculiar, purely protective, properties.
It depends, but how much progress did you make? Also making plate armor is easier if you have the right equipment. The easiest form of plate you can probably make is a coat of plates or brigandine.
A nice rule of thumb to understand armor design better is that it's not meant to defeat weapons, it's meant to give you a second chance. Even modern armored vehicles can be thought of like this.
I think you are not completely wrong but not completely right either. Sure, you cam make cloth armour that protects as good as plate armour, if you use enough layers of cloth. But such armour will be extremely heavy, bulky and costly. So most historical cloth armours provided less protection than most historical plate armours. You may consider this less protection inadequate, but it surely is better than no protection at all. (And a lot of warriors throughout history had no body armour whatsoever, only clothes and maybe a helmet.) On the other hand, if mail and plate armour provide equal protection, but the mail is heavier, you can add extra protection to the plate armour either by making it thicker or by covering more body parts by it. You may consider this extra protection unnecessary, but there were specific antiarmour weapons like mace, pollaxe, couched lance or crossbow, and extra protection may help against those. So at the end mail armour will protect you worse than plate armour of the equal weight.
It's worth noting here that there are accounts of some of the conquistadors attacking the Aztec empire ended up trading their European plate armor for the local cloth armor because it provided better protection.
@@gregcale5388 Against local weapons, such as stone-tipped arrows - yes, first of all because it covered more body than a cuirass. Also it probably was more comfortable to wear, especially in local climate, and considering that there were a lot of ambushes the armour you are actually wearing at the moment protects you better. But as far as I know no one suggested to equip european pikemen with cloth armour instead of plate cuirasses.
@@user-yy5xs6xj7r And here you hit the point many people are missing, and many armor systems in RPGs ignore: armor is tuned to the weapons it will face, and there are many trade-offs that can have varying degrees of effects depending on conditions. I bought a full set of armor from an SCA member, and it came with a full-plate upper leg piece. I will never wear that unless I face edged weapons because the weight it is not worth the protection it provides.
@@gregcale5388 Sure, armour should be tuned to the context in which it'll be used. And I am not sayimg that many armour systems in RPGs are good. Although I prefer GURPS and armour system there is quite good, as it considers resistence to different types of damage, percentage of body covered, weight, cost and some other factors.
How many of these pieces are from the Royal Museum in Toronto? I feel like I just saw them all today. That museum was unexpectedly fantastic by the way. I was blown away with how many cool historical pieces they had.
The ROM has a very extensive collection of arms and armour, from a wide array of cultures, though they aren't always aware of what they've got. Last year I got to go in and measure a bunch of their African shields for a project, in exchange for helping them figure out where some of them were from. It was fantastic to actually get to handle some of the objects I'd been writing about.
When cold it feels like any other metal, when hot it's very soft and flexible and friable. Mild steel is a reasonable equivalent in terms of strength and hardness, but it behaves very differently when stressed and weathers differently. In short, there is no real equivalent.
Bit of a nonsequitor but did other rival tribes to those of Iroquois Confederation fight with similar armour and arms in the precontact era or was it specifically their development in the Great Lakes reigon?
I’m going to have to disagree. All forms of what can be called heavy armor do not offer equivalent levels of protection to each other. That’s just incorrect. A 15th century Italian breastplate is much more likely to stop an arrow from a 15th Century high draw weight war-bow than the scale or lamellar armor of a 7th century Near-Eastern cataphract. If Roman or Persian cataphracts could have worn renaissance era plate armor, they would have. Advances in metallurgy and other technologies over the intervening 800 years made armor of that quality possible, where it previously hadn’t been. However, the bows a Sassanian cavalryman would have had to fear also were not nearly as powerful as what a knight in the 15th century would have been up against. The top end draw weights of bows toward the end of antiquity was around 120 lbs, with an average around 60-70 lbs, at least from my reading. War bows in the renaissance period had an average draw weight of at least 100 lbs, with some examples topping 180 lbs, also benefitting from advancements in arrow construction as well. None of this is to say that a Catphract’s armor was insufficient, or that a roman war-bow was underpowered. They were each made as effective as they could have been given the limitations in technology and division of labor. The same, for the record, is true of renaissance era arms and armor. No soldier on any battlefield today would opt for a medieval breastplate instead of modern ceramic or metal plates. I agree that heavy armor, regardless of context, would have to have been relatively effective against common threats, or men just wouldn’t wear it; but not every historical battlefield had the same threats present, even setting aside obvious points of discontinuity like the introduction of firearms. And for the record, I think your reconstructions of historical Iroquois arms and armor are excellent, and they strike me as exceedingly practical in the context they came from.
Just a little comment, but draw weights are one factor to consider when determining how powerful a bow is. From what I know, a Sassanid bow was constructed through composite materials that would make it a lot more energy efficient than your usual war bow in Europe. Then again, I don't know which bow you'd be referring to since all I know are just longbows. To get an idea of this, I'll recall about a little test I've read about involving a replica of a Manchu bow around 80# to a yew longbow at 120#. Both used the same grain of arrow, and with a 40lbs or so difference, the Manchu bow out performed the longbow. A Manchu bow's a bit different than those I've seen, so take this as you will.
There is a definite difference between different types of armour. You will not penetrate hardened steel plate. You will easily penetrate chainmail even with coth behind it eg with a bodkin. The weapons used in medieval europe where developed to counter specific types of armor, the swords moved from cutting weapons to swords used in halfswording to penetrate gaps in the crotch and other difficult to protect areas. Axes and maces worked to crush the bones of enemies wearing chainmail with realtive ease. Might i suggest the videos of Todds Workshop, Tobias Capwell and Knyght Errant detailing the development of weapons and armour, their relative usefullness and the arms race between them.
If it didn't work, people wouldn't use it. And apparently people just used what they had that worked. Its not surprising. Thanks for your videos.
Had just finished making a comment to the same effect, then saw this one. If something doesn't work, people wouldn't wear it.
Well said, I more or less agree.
Additional factors would include cost, availability of materials, construction time and skill required, maintenance needed, weather resistance and so on.
"Level of protection" seems to only become more of a difference when you start going beyond muscle strength as a limiting factor, as with loading levers and winches for crossbows, and with firearms as you mentioned.
or the difference between the strength of a spear thrust by a man on foot vs a. Couched spear from a man on a 1,200lb war horse at a full gallop
Pretty sharp, Malcolm. The advantages also should be considered: wooden and/or hide armor is immune to horse sweat. Mail auto-articulates and hence can be made with no gaps (at all). Etc., etc.
Agreed, I remember when I fist started HEMA sword and pole arm fighting and how brutally hot just the Gambison is
A much more accurate summation of armor. One aspect that is mostly ignored in video and tabletop games is that the primary drawback of any armor is how fucking hot it makes you. How much you sweat in it, how much heat you can release in it, how hot it gets to the touch when you're marching or fighting all day. Exhaustion and stamina mechanics are boring and rarely implemented but are literally critical to how actual human beings function and fight. I greatly enjoy the Emberverse novels by SM Stirling, but in one of the later ones, the characters wear late medieval plate harness in the Pacific islands while fighting. They mention how hot and sweaty they are several times, but this was pretty much nonsense. You would be gassed and suffering heat stroke VERY quickly encased in steel plate in a tropical environment. There are very good reason people of different climates dress and armor themselves the way that they do; because they are adapted to their context. The reason they are so heavily armored compared to the people they're fighting is because they should have keeled over dying of heatstroke already in reality.
Mail reaches across Eurasia and Africa because it is a very versatile style of armor. Simple but laborious to produce, it's inherently flexible which is useful for wearing and storage but crucially also means it's inherently one size fits all. Like all articles of clothing with that dubious distinction, it isn't really true but it is generally true. One person can hand down a mail hauberk to the next generation and it will most likely fit acceptably. You can strip it off a dead man and get yourself a new gambeson and now you're much better equipped. Very versatile. It also, critically, is full of holes. Which means you get airflow through it, cooling you and drying your clothing underneath, and letting your body heat escape. It is much more suitable for hot climates than plate is. It can also be made much more rigid, shoring up it's great weak point, by including splints or plates into the mail patterns.
I’ve worn mail and a gambeson and I think the quilted padding stops any air flow that might come through the holes. I think the cooling benefits of mail probably come from having some of your legs and arms bear to dissipate the heat. Just a thought but possibly plate feels hotter because being one piece of metal it retains heat like an iron pan and not because it blocks airflow.
@@kitwheldon7942Don't forget how hot a thin piece of steel can get when being exposes to the sun.
Case in point: Anglo-French Crusaders lost 60 men in a day to heat stroke and exhaustion during the Barbary Crusader of 1390. Their Hafsid Berber opponents, who were armoured only in rawhide, ran rings around them while waiting for the sun to kill them.
Mail's primary advantage over plate in hot environments like Saharan Africa has less to do with it being cooler, and more to do with it being quick to take on and off. Most African soldiers won't wear their armour on the march, instead donning it right before the battle, and then taking it off immediately after. You can shrug in or out of a mail coat fairly quickly, while plate armour requires minutes or more to get into or out of--minutes you may not have in an ambush, or when the battle is over and heatstroke is rapidly creeping up on you.
this is a very intresting thought.
(i found your channel last Sunday, and binge watched all the armor videos, and shared them around. wooden armor is so facilitating, and discovering it even existed in the eastern US was quite the surprise to me. back when i researched it for a fantasy novel i was writing, there was basically nothing on the internet about it's effectiveness or use)
Concise, very astute and thinking outside the box. Just what I've come to think as the standard on this channel. Kudos!
a pound of feathers and a pound of lead will (over equal surface area) provide similar protection. all be they different in most other aspects.
I have never seen any depiction of armor that I found especially complex or interesting. The ideas youve posited would make interacting with armor a much more compelling and grounded experience. Good thought.
The continued use of an armour shows that it was judged to be effective in there role, perfect no but it had to give a warrior a real benefit worth its weight and cost.
When a better armour comes along we do see a rapid switch to it.
In Europe Scale armour was widely pushed out of use by mail armour, not because mail is cheaper to make or more protective but because mail is better fitted to that economic environment's iron supply.
Could you elaborate on that? Specifically, how did the iron supply make mail preferable to scale armour if neither armour was cheaper to produce than the other?
very Interesting thought... thank you for sharing
I am developing a video game where different characters can be equipped by a combination of armor pieces and this video gave me quite a few ideas about how to differentiate the pieces, thank you.
Just use the Fallout method count the weight in
Resistance to damage is a good way to frame it. A material that has qualities that permit it to resist being cut or slashed inherently make it more prone to blunt force or piercing. The focus should definitely be on the material and it's qualities. Chainmail is good against slashes and blunt force, and remarkably bad at absorbing stabs and piercing attacks. Qualities woven armor like brigandines, or plate mail make up for. It's a large reason for why many maces ended up with flanges and spikes at the sides - to combine the benefits of multiple damage types against heavily armored opponents. Axes were too rounded with a ) shape, so maces could be made with a } shape, as that point allowed the weight and mass of the club the benefits of piercing with a sharper point
I think you're conflating a false dichotomy there. A thing that is good at resisting being cut is not inherently bad at resisting blunt force impacts or piercing damage. A rounded, bowled shaped plate is excellent at all of this. You can't easily if at all cut hardened steel with a blade, piercing attacks are likely to simply glance and scratch the finish, and the curvature is inherently great at spreading out and redistributing force.
Fine, very high quality silk, if thick enough, is also pretty decent at all of this. Just super expensive. Sort of like a thick nylon/kevlar/aramid flak jacket. Probably won't stop a rifle-caliber bullet at close ranges (which is why we use hardened steel or hard ceramic plates to stop very high speed objects), but it's pretty damn cut and stab resistant to blades, and high speed but rather larger and not aerodynamic fragments of metal, and its thickness makes it pretty good at blunt force as well.
Also, flanges, knobs and so on, on maces, aren't really typically there to try to pierce plate completely, but are there to help the thing "catch" or "grab" onto the steel a bit better so that more force gets transferred, as opposed to glancing off, which is what any half-decent metal armor wants to do; redirect.
This is one of the most informative and inquisitive channels on the platform. Never give up.,
You are brilliant and very detailed; I like your videos a lot. Thank you!
I think the main point about plate armor and why its so good is that it glances incoming strikes off which means that alot which means that less energy from the blow is going to your body. Other types of armor is not going to glance blows away from you as much as plate armor.
So if a hit is coming straight on and all the energy is going into you then yes, it probably doesnt matter that much what the actual type of the armor is as long as it has the same stopping force and cushioning. However in real combat the majority of the blows are not hitting you straight on, so wearing plate armor would be an advantage since it will automatically deflect the blow.
In video game terms: pierce armor/slash armor/blunt armor // and then you can add environmental penalties like "easily set ablaze" like fiber or "can rust" for metal or "will attract hungry animals" like leather
With the exception of rust, those penalties aren't terribly realistic. A gambeson won't cause a man to suddenly combust as if he's doused in kerosene, and I doubt a hungry animal would be attracted to the smell of treated leather.
Don't forget "can literally cook you alive and make you pass from heatstroke after use"
So, more like an equation, where encumbrance, protection, mobility, and comfort converge. Now, how do I convert that into 2nd edition AD&D....
AC+1/1kg & DEX-1/1kg : density ?
Any solution would be too cumbersome for the ruleset.
3.5 had max dex, Skill malus, (can't have more than x AC points from your dex modifier) you could deploy it almost as is in 2e
eg. no max dex for padded, -2 max dex and -25% on impacted Skills for chainmail, -1 max dex and -30% for plate...
if survival is a mechanic, maybe a malus on saves against extreme heat or fatigue
I was just watching a video about LARP and the one thing that was mentioned even for just role players was comfort. No point in buying a full set of armor if it will be uncomfortable, better to start with the cuirass and add on to it as you level up. I enjoy that you go into these studies and breakdown theories about it.
Crazy to think that even cultures who didn't have access to steel in sufficient volumes (Japan, American Indians) still developed heavy armor that could defend from war bows using bamboo or wood. Reminds me of the horo, a short-lived invention that could stop arrows from striking Samurai in their backs, and all it was made from was a few layers of silk pulled over a frame.
ruclips.net/video/DAKHHasyjUE/видео.html
interesting perspective, great videos
I like your thoughts. I think coverage is another separate factor to take into consideration too.
A further aspect to consider by a commander of forces is to choose armor that is appropriate for conditions of the moment.
Ex. Battle of Agincourt 1415 where heavily armored French troops, with otherwise overwhelming numbers, were thoroughly crushed by England's nearly unarmored forces because they could maneuver in the muddy terrain of the battlefield whereas French forces were completely bogged down.
This is the reason too for modern day forces to stash all but their most necessary equipment - including body armor - then stealthily advance to do battle, a particularly good tactic in hot, densely covered terrain.
As per your earlier discussions, I can imagine even light wooden armor providing an advantage in most open field battles but of little use when used in ambush or rapid assaults on unsuspecting foes.
*** Very much enjoying your perspectives shared here!
I think you're correct to say a lot of people incorrectly see armor advances as a nice linear progression of protection like a video game but i also think you're skirting around the correct conclusion too.
Protection is always paid for. In weight, in materials, in wealth, in comfort, in flexibility whatever. But different types of armor have different costs in each field and those costs can be an objectively better deal.
If the amount of textile armor you'd have to wear to get the same protection as a plate harness isn't feasible to wear, the plate is more protective, in pretty much every normal way to use the phrase. If there isnt an implied "for a given cost" or "all else being equal", then the phrase "as protective" loses all meaning - cotton candy is as protective as modern body armor because enough of it will stop a bullet (an example in absurdity ofc)
And protection did progress. A 16th century knight is objectively better protected than a 12th century one.
Still a valuable lens and a good thought provoking video, but i feel the conclusion is pushed too far and/or misses the best possible framing.
Love the channel and appreciate the thought. Though armor did reach it's pinnacle in renisaunce europe due to it's supierior protection. Even then it's astounding to see the various ways diffrent cultures created armors to address their needs. In the end the human body is a control across the board and it's amazing to see what people come up with.
I do have to say most wooden armors were not very impressive or intresting to me, but the style of the Iroquois wooden armor you recreated was astounding.
It in many ways I hypothesize will be supirior to many forms of armor. Wonder what the Iroquois would've created had they had access to metal.
I wasn't expecting a Malcolm/Limmy crossover
I think you're right that every culture quickly figures out how to stop arrow and sling fire with some kind of simple armor. However, in the particular case of plate mail, it evolved more in response to a steel sword rather than arrow fire. It's true that some features in the shaping were designed to deflect arrow fire but these were more to keep it "backwards compatible" and still deflect arrows while also stopping sword blows. We see the corollary evolution of weapons alongside armor, like how the poleaxe was invented to combat plate mail. In other-words since arrow fire's effectiveness tops out due to the maximum strength of the user (with some minor differences in material properties) the variation in armor is more in response to changes in hand to hand weaponry and tactics than ranged fire. This is of course until the introduction of the gun when ranged fire becomes so deadly that hand to hand stops being relevant.
Wake up babe, Malcolm P.L. is decolonizing again
I mostly agree, but I would make the case that different types of armor can be more or less protective against different types of attacks. For example, chainmail armor is effectively impenetrable by slashing weapons but does not give a high level of protection against blunt impacts even when worn over padded textiles. Compared to lamellar or plate armors, which have quite a bit of protection from blunt impacts and textile armors which are much more vulnerable to slashing cuts. And since there is a functional upper limit to the weight of armor, materials that give better protection for weight (e.g. plate vs chain) allow more of the body to be effectively protected before becoming overburdened.
Like you said, though, it's not a matter of one being "superior." It's about advantages and disadvantages. In a hot climate perhaps it's worth losing some protection if it means you won't overheat as quickly. If you fight in formations, it might make sense to minimize body armor in favor of large shields. Etc. People are innovative by nature... given time, we'll come up with the best solution for our needs and resources. So any armor that was widely used must have been the best for those people at that time.
good thinking, as always
If you can't move in it, no matter what you wear your defenseless.
Very true point, and I agree. Durability is another factor. A steel cuirass is going to be far more durable than wood armor and will last longer if taken care of. The wood armor however is far cheaper and easier to repair once damaged as a skilled armorer will be needed to fix the steel.
Number and points to types of armor though doesn't bother me personally since it makes it easy to balance. A + 3 AC mail shirt isn't inherently better than a +4 AC breastplate in real life. But you have to balance out the nuances somehow. Role-playing can take up the rest. The mail armor failed because an arrow managed to breat through the links after an orc beat your AC, the fighter didn't get hurt because the breastplate is solid steel. What games get wron, good imagination and Role-playing can make up for the rest. At least in tabletop rpgs like D&D. That's just my hot take, though. Regardless if armor didn't work, then they wouldn't have used it. Good video as always.
'Protection' (or damage resistance, or armour bonus) 'for a given weight and volume' is probably a better way of describing it, but it does seem like people don't think about that.
So what you're saying is armor values should be determined by the particular combination of pieces being worn at once, with certain debuffs to account for the varous downsides of using certain types of armor (bulky, hot, etc.)
A phrase I've had to repeat a lot when explaining African armours to non-specialists is "if it didn't work, they wouldn't have used it." Because man oh man do you get a lot of reactions to the effect of "this looks like it would have been useless," when you share any sort of non-European armour in certain forums (an experience I'm sure you're only too familiar with).
Personally, I share your suspicions that certain configurations that are often dismissed as inferior to full plate, particularly some of the Islamic plated mail armours, were probably pretty comparable in terms of the protection they offered, if for no other reason than that if there was a gap in the protective quality of them, you'd expect European sources on conflicts with the Mamluks or Ottomans to mention it, and they don't.
I think steel plate might have a few things which would make it more protective
Like angled armor designed to make strikes glance off the side rather than take the full force of a strike. I think that is a big enough thing to say like it's the same
I think I do agree with the idea in this video. But I do think some armors are just more protective.
Yep, I agree. Armour evolved with increases in technology that were forced by improvements in weapons that were themselves responses to improvements in armour. All of those types of armour were used - and worked - until somebody invented something better, and if you could afford that new, improved armour, you used it.
Thats something ill have to keep in mind.
I'm trying to think of a way to apply this thought process to a ttrpg. Maybe instead of an armor score you would merely mark if your character is armored or not with various disadvantages applied due to that armors type. Have a characters ability to hit their target be based on the opponent dodge score and if you are wearing bulky or heavy armor that may decrease your dodge score, then if the target is armored have a simple roll to determine if the armor absorbs the blow or not then damage rolls and so on
Protection power pound, protection per bulk, protection per reduction in movement.
I both agree with what you started about bulk and inconvenience, but the same weight of big iron rings is not going to be as protective as the same weight of riveted maille as iron cuts and deforms easier and too large of rings means arrows may ignore it.
The same weight of oak is not as good as the same weight of a softwood in a layered Scottish targe as oak has the wrong properties and splinters easily, especially against rifle fire. Fandabadosi (?) just did a video on this topic. In fact maille may not be as important as the padding beneath it against certain arrowsheafs, but better against others.
Armor is a complex topic and you are correct to point out that "lesser" materials are not inherently that much inferior. Leather, not padding, should be on the bottom of the list for protection. Bone may well be better than leather, or maybe not, depending on what it faces. Iron, bronze, and steel may also vary based on form and how it is laminated with other materials. Lamination is often key as leather, wool, and wood are generally considered "lower" but laminate then into a shield and it may well do better against musket fire than a steel breastplate as you can angle it against the shot. Very interesting topic
When steel plate was not used, it was due to limited technology (to speak simply). People switched to steel when they could, partly because it decreased their chance of dying in battle. Considering that armored warriors were killed in combat, what does "adequate" mean? There certainly is such a thing as armor which is adequate in more scenarios than another armor. People may well exaggerate the difference in capabilities of various heavy armors, but the way this video is worded certainly overcompensates for any such error.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts; as a result, moving forward, I will think more carefully when I consider these matters.
The problem that most people have is that steel is the LIGHTEST armor available in many time periods. Let's say you want to stop 200 joules of force from an axe to the torso with armor that retains structural integrity after the strike. Well either you need roughly 2mm of steel, 2-4mm of iron, probably 5mm plus of rawhide, 20mm of wood or even more, or even an inch plus of cotton. To get the job done of protection steel, iron, or bronze are your only real options if you want a full body suit of armor that isn't comically thick, overweighted, and hideously consumptive of available materials. The whole problem is achieving effective protection is about a kilogram of steel, or ten kilograms of feathers.
armor philosophy is simple. hard material will stop harder material.
hard material were costly, so you reduce the amount of hard material used (by chain or plaquettes/lamellar)
you still retain the same amount of defence just a different way to go about it.
I agree with you on most of what you said, but I would have to disagree with you on the point of plate metal vs chainmail armor on protection. If I strike a man in the chest with a warhammer while he is wearing plate armor I will have likely knocked the wind out of him, bruised a couple of ribs, and put him on his back. if I did that to a man wearing chainmail and cloth I would have likely broken ribs or even ruptured a organ or two. So maybe they do offer similar levels of protection against arrows, but not so much against blunt force weapons.
True, but the person wearing chain mail might have found it easier to dodge your blow and then strike back.
@@Scodiddly I don't know about that one. The plate I have worn was very light and flexible compared to the chainmail. One being a 12 century foot man the other a 16th century pike man. But then again reenactment is different from real combat.
Exactly this.
I more or less agree, though I would add the caveat that how protective an armour is depends a lot on the damage mechanics of the weapons it’s going up against. As you say hu,an strength is a constant, but certain armour is strong against certain types of weapons and weak against others. Solid armour like plate, lamellar, or wood is going to be harder to thrust through and probably better at resisting blunt weapons (although the gent inside it might not be! Hence why things like maces exist, they essentially bypass armour. Yet, I must admit I’d much rather be wearing plate when I get smacked with one.) and relatively proof against the cut or thrust. Armour is designed to counter weapons and it evolves within specific contexts, so understanding the different weapons armour was intended to counter and the cultural context is also super important when analyzing.
As you alluded to, the sort of popular conception of “x armour is better that y armour” is inaccurate, and for something like a RPG armour bonuses should probably stack, as characters are able to add different types of armour on different areas of the body to increase protection. So if cloth armor is a +1, chainmail is a +2, and plate a +3, then your actual protection when putting together those elements would be something like +4 in all but the weak spots in joints where it’d be a +3. Viewed in this context and also with encumbrance and coverage considerations in mind I think you start to see why people used certain types of armour in certain spots with varying levels of protection.
One factor you are not considering here: Strength beyond human capabilities is DEFINITELY a factor before firearms because there is one strength multiplier available since at least bronze age, and that is the horse. Wooden armor may well work against a human's strength, but could it take a lance thrust from a mounted warrior? Food for thought.
I think that much force is just a lost cause to armor against, but that is a very good point
Unknown, since most wooden armours develop in places where horses aren't readily available: the Americas most frequently, with some appearances in parts of Asia and tropical Africa. Which of course just goes to the broader point that people build their gear for the threats they're liable to encounter.
It's an arms race. Depends on what you are protecting yourself from. Rock-Paper-Scissors.
You should test your wood armor against a steel tipped arrow.
I have. Broadhead and bodkin. 100# bow. As well a steel sword. As well a steel felling axe. And a heavy steel spear. The spear gets though only when it strikes a gap. Everything else is blocked.
@@MalcolmPLNever knew you were able to draw 100#. How far are you when you do shooting tests?
About fifteen feet.
I don't know that I would agree. There are huge differences in protection offered by different armours. Plate armour can stop a lot more than wooden armour, mail, gamberson etc and is better at prevent the transfer of force form blunt impacts.
Yes, humans are all roughly the same strength but that isn't the limiting factor even before gunpowder, technology still plays a role. It's why steel gets better, swords get pointier and things like pole axes are developed.
It's a good thought
I would love to see a video game where your tools, weapons, and armor are reinforced as something that belongs to you and that requires care. Unfortunately this is in opposition to a modern consensus on various things that make games fun. We want you to get to use all of the variety of available weapons, so weapons will be brittle, situational, and constantly breaking or being made obsolete. We want you to get the feeling of progression, of collecting things, and being rewarded for exploration, so one armor set will only get you a certain way through the game before its useless. I'd like to see a game where you have to bang individual dents out of your armor, because its *your* armor and you have to care for it. Maybe these straps are wearing down and I should make some new ones. My sword is getting dull, but rather than throw it away and get a new one, I am incentivized to sharpen it.
I think this is relevant to your point about armor as a linear progression, but maybe its just what I happen to have on my mind.
Great video! As a continuation of this thought, what would be a more accurate scaling system than cloth-1, leather-2, mail-5, etc? Maybe each type of armor provides different nerfs/buffs but the same overall protection? Again, great work thanks for your production!
With basic dnd there isn't a good answer beyond reducing armour selection to heavy vs light. This is probably the best way of representing this concept, as adding complexity usually makes rpgs worse. You don't want any rules that slow the game down.
There are always trade offs. Fancy plate armor might have been favored by warriors who didn’t need as much flexibility, such as commanders. Chain mail is much easier to move in, also easier to repair with minimal tools - perhaps better for a foot soldier.
Steel plate was just as mobile as chainmail, a lot of the armor was built with the idea that you had to move around because, you know, the one's wearing it are going to be in a battlefield.
I would only disagree with one part of this video and that is the one about mail armor. Some modern archaeologists and reenactors believe that, at least at some points of time, mail was worn without a gambeson or thick garments beneath. The reason is that the more you want to wear beneath the more rings you need and this makes it significantly heavier + it tends to restrict your movement more than it has to. Especially 12.Century medieval Iconography and book paintings implicate that mail was actually tailored to the Bodyform of it's wearer which would only wear (maybe thick but not nearly as thick as gambeson) cloth beneath it
I can accept that different types of armour may give similar protection against arrows. But against blunt force weapons such as a mace or axe, I think steel plate would be far superior due to it's rigidity.
Axes aren't really blunt force weapons, afaik they don't hit significantly harder than a sword with a comparable weight. Also, I could be wrong here but I would imagine that padded armour would disperse the energy more efficiently than rigid metal, because the fabric would compress and spread the force of the blow across a wider area.
Well yes and no. The thing about the steel plates is sure it's going to stop blunt trauma, however if there is no padding it's going straight through it. Worse still is if it dents and concaves on they wearer.
For example a 3lb mace swung in hand will have nowhere near the velocity to penitrate the steel, but they momentum and force can transfer a great deal through it due to the resistance of the material.
Don't forget environmental factors. Full Plate only seemed to work in regions that it's suited in. Full plate wouldn't work well in hot climates or you'd end up roasted alive in your armor.
Games assign values for balance purposes. If a gambeson technically provides as much armour value as, say, a chain shirt, why wear the chain shirt if it's heavier and provides no more armour than a gambeson?
Not to mention that while gambesons, chain mail, etc will stop bladed weapons, they don't distribute force like plates will, and thus may not stop damage underneath the skin, or even be able to last against a steady flow of damage like plate can. It would be hard to include that in a game in an engaging way (for most people).
TLDR: realism doesn't always make for engaging gameplay.
I disagree as various armour types provide different strengths and weakness in different situations. For example steel plate IS more protective than chainmail (plus gambison) because mail provides almost no protection again blunt force. A mace, war hammer or even a sword could easily break bones through chainmail. However chainmail is more protective because plate armour tends to leave large gaps around joints and articulations whereas the only gaps on a mail hauberk are between the rings. There is a reason every armour type was used. They are effective at what they are made to do but new armour technologies would be invented to address the weaknesses of old armour types.
I think some of your observations are correct whilst some are not. The tests done by "Tod's Workshop" are currently the rolled gold standard of armour testing and theory. No armour works all the time. Armour that works rarely probably would not be worn. Today we see well financed countries suppling their armies with ceramic etc body armour which works sometimes. Whilst poorly financed rebels etc usually wear none. In WW2 American planes had heavy armour surrounding their pilots which made their planes heavier and less agile. Japanese planes had no armour and were very agile. Japanese planes generally had an advantage in the air. American pilots often survived even when the plane was heavily damaged. However the Japanese ran out of experienced pilots. Experience beats agility. To sum up. The use of armour can sometimes be a matter of philosophy/strategy/wealth.
It's as easy to cut wood with an axe as it is a metal plate of the same weight. It's as easy to pierce a cloth gambeson with a rapier as it is chainmail. And the thin straps that hold your armour together are as easy to break independently of what they are holding together. Every armour is better than none and no armour is better than all.
It is said a crusader king broke a steel bar with his broad sword in front of an arab king, to show him how screwed they were. And the arab lifted his scimitar and cut a silk napkin by gently dropping it on the blade. Which one's best? None. Both could harm and both their armours could save.
Advantages at war depend on leveling more than one stat. You can make improvements, but no material or build is inherently better. After all, mail is better than layered cloth, plate is better than mail, but a bulletproof vest made of layered cloth is often better than both against bullets.
There is something to your hypothesis, but I would disagree specifically about the qualities of maile armor. Maile is elastic, which means it does not restrict your movement much, but it does transfer blunt trauma to the body.
Okay, there was so called "double maile" in use, which could stop even a couched lance, but it didn't mean the wearer was left unharmed after absorbing such a blow. Initially they started putting plate *on top* of maile, therefore *adding* weight, just to stop our puny bones from getting fractured.
I don't want to write an essay here, so I just summarize that various materials and methods of construction do have their peculiar, purely protective, properties.
I'm currently making riveted mail and man it would be so much easier to make plate armor.
It depends, but how much progress did you make? Also making plate armor is easier if you have the right equipment. The easiest form of plate you can probably make is a coat of plates or brigandine.
A nice rule of thumb to understand armor design better is that it's not meant to defeat weapons, it's meant to give you a second chance. Even modern armored vehicles can be thought of like this.
I think you are not completely wrong but not completely right either.
Sure, you cam make cloth armour that protects as good as plate armour, if you use enough layers of cloth. But such armour will be extremely heavy, bulky and costly. So most historical cloth armours provided less protection than most historical plate armours. You may consider this less protection inadequate, but it surely is better than no protection at all. (And a lot of warriors throughout history had no body armour whatsoever, only clothes and maybe a helmet.)
On the other hand, if mail and plate armour provide equal protection, but the mail is heavier, you can add extra protection to the plate armour either by making it thicker or by covering more body parts by it. You may consider this extra protection unnecessary, but there were specific antiarmour weapons like mace, pollaxe, couched lance or crossbow, and extra protection may help against those. So at the end mail armour will protect you worse than plate armour of the equal weight.
I wrote a very similar comment over an hour ago, but it seems to have been lost. Thanks for covering the point.
It's worth noting here that there are accounts of some of the conquistadors attacking the Aztec empire ended up trading their European plate armor for the local cloth armor because it provided better protection.
@@gregcale5388 Against local weapons, such as stone-tipped arrows - yes, first of all because it covered more body than a cuirass. Also it probably was more comfortable to wear, especially in local climate, and considering that there were a lot of ambushes the armour you are actually wearing at the moment protects you better. But as far as I know no one suggested to equip european pikemen with cloth armour instead of plate cuirasses.
@@user-yy5xs6xj7r And here you hit the point many people are missing, and many armor systems in RPGs ignore: armor is tuned to the weapons it will face, and there are many trade-offs that can have varying degrees of effects depending on conditions.
I bought a full set of armor from an SCA member, and it came with a full-plate upper leg piece. I will never wear that unless I face edged weapons because the weight it is not worth the protection it provides.
@@gregcale5388 Sure, armour should be tuned to the context in which it'll be used. And I am not sayimg that many armour systems in RPGs are good. Although I prefer GURPS and armour system there is quite good, as it considers resistence to different types of damage, percentage of body covered, weight, cost and some other factors.
How many of these pieces are from the Royal Museum in Toronto? I feel like I just saw them all today. That museum was unexpectedly fantastic by the way. I was blown away with how many cool historical pieces they had.
Maybe nine tenths. I source most of my images from the ROM online collection.
The ROM has a very extensive collection of arms and armour, from a wide array of cultures, though they aren't always aware of what they've got. Last year I got to go in and measure a bunch of their African shields for a project, in exchange for helping them figure out where some of them were from. It was fantastic to actually get to handle some of the objects I'd been writing about.
What about kevlar?
hey can you do a video about middle eastern armor?
Nope. I lack the background to talk about anything from that region.
@@MalcolmPLWhat does wrought iron feel like and what would be a modern equivalent?
When cold it feels like any other metal, when hot it's very soft and flexible and friable. Mild steel is a reasonable equivalent in terms of strength and hardness, but it behaves very differently when stressed and weathers differently. In short, there is no real equivalent.
Interesting, but I don’t think your entirely right, you’ve probably seen, but I recommend the Todd cutler arrows vs armour videos.
I would argue that when tests fail it is a result of an incorrect configuration.
Aren’t mules stronger than horses? I know that they’re a bit slower to. But did any heavy cavalry historically use mules instead of horses?
🗿👍
Bit of a nonsequitor but did other rival tribes to those of Iroquois Confederation fight with similar armour and arms in the precontact era or was it specifically their development in the Great Lakes reigon?
Yes. It’s less well documented but I’ve seen a number of groups mentioned in passing as wearing armour.
did you used to have a video about a "boring" theory of history and if so where may i find it still
it’s there, just type it into the search bar or go back through the videos tab.
@@MalcolmPL ah I found it, thank you. I had brought it up with a friend and had wanted to send it to them
I’m going to have to disagree.
All forms of what can be called heavy armor do not offer equivalent levels of protection to each other. That’s just incorrect.
A 15th century Italian breastplate is much more likely to stop an arrow from a 15th Century high draw weight war-bow than the scale or lamellar armor of a 7th century Near-Eastern cataphract.
If Roman or Persian cataphracts could have worn renaissance era plate armor, they would have.
Advances in metallurgy and other technologies over the intervening 800 years made armor of that quality possible, where it previously hadn’t been.
However, the bows a Sassanian cavalryman would have had to fear also were not nearly as powerful as what a knight in the 15th century would have been up against. The top end draw weights of bows toward the end of antiquity was around 120 lbs, with an average around 60-70 lbs, at least from my reading. War bows in the renaissance period had an average draw weight of at least 100 lbs, with some examples topping 180 lbs, also benefitting from advancements in arrow construction as well.
None of this is to say that a Catphract’s armor was insufficient, or that a roman war-bow was underpowered. They were each made as effective as they could have been given the limitations in technology and division of labor.
The same, for the record, is true of renaissance era arms and armor. No soldier on any battlefield today would opt for a medieval breastplate instead of modern ceramic or metal plates.
I agree that heavy armor, regardless of context, would have to have been relatively effective against common threats, or men just wouldn’t wear it; but not every historical battlefield had the same threats present, even setting aside obvious points of discontinuity like the introduction of firearms.
And for the record, I think your reconstructions of historical Iroquois arms and armor are excellent, and they strike me as exceedingly practical in the context they came from.
Just a little comment, but draw weights are one factor to consider when determining how powerful a bow is. From what I know, a Sassanid bow was constructed through composite materials that would make it a lot more energy efficient than your usual war bow in Europe. Then again, I don't know which bow you'd be referring to since all I know are just longbows.
To get an idea of this, I'll recall about a little test I've read about involving a replica of a Manchu bow around 80# to a yew longbow at 120#. Both used the same grain of arrow, and with a 40lbs or so difference, the Manchu bow out performed the longbow. A Manchu bow's a bit different than those I've seen, so take this as you will.
But steel is heavier than feathers.....
Prescient video, all engineering is made up of dozens and dozens of compromises like the ones mentioned here.
I'd say this is mostly true for infantry hand weapons, but against cavalry I think the protective qualities of plate armour would be very significant.
There is a definite difference between different types of armour. You will not penetrate hardened steel plate. You will easily penetrate chainmail even with coth behind it eg with a bodkin. The weapons used in medieval europe where developed to counter specific types of armor, the swords moved from cutting weapons to swords used in halfswording to penetrate gaps in the crotch and other difficult to protect areas. Axes and maces worked to crush the bones of enemies wearing chainmail with realtive ease. Might i suggest the videos of Todds Workshop, Tobias Capwell and Knyght Errant detailing the development of weapons and armour, their relative usefullness and the arms race between them.