@@goldenrose223 Yes, indeed, and the logic can go yet further. The chain mail and plate armor is made with the same high degree of quality materials and artful forging processes as that which is utilized in the forging of swords. If the chest plate of an enemy is so easily cleaved through, what would keep one sword from cutting another in half or vice versa?
0:31 hurt my soul, for the most part padded armor was the cheapest there was, but leather barely ever existed as armor except to connect plates together
@@yeather_6562 most of the time in order to fake a stab at full-speed they either have to use rubber weapons which might wobble unnaturally in the lead-up or use something literally cut in half so nothing actually hits the actor and CG the rest of the blade in.
@@palmkruka yeah, they give him a empty sword scabard in that scene so the actor could not get accidentally injured while performing the "fall from the horse" scene for having something long and hard atached to his hilt.
Directors are supposed to be problem solvers right? They can put their creativity to good use and find a cheap way of making realistic sword fights without putting too much strain on the stuntmen.
Lmao good catch. That aside, from light reading, poleaxes, spears, halberds, etc. fall under a general umbrella called polearms and even with that, most polearms are not described well or labeled definitely, like a poleaxe could be an axe or considered a type of spear. It's all confusing, from how it's being studied, so him saying "a spear with pointy end" feels relatable to how polearms are "defined" or categorized.
Ah man, those were the good ol days, hangin' with the other Legion 13 bruhs, slayin' a bunch of dirty savages, bringin' mad honor to our households....👌😎
Action movies about modern times are worse: people just punch someone once in the chest or judo throw them to the ground and assume that they're knocked out. That's what I liked about John Wick: always make sure they're dead.
I liked how in the Daredevil Netflix series, everyone he punched or knocked down would repeatedly get up and fight again until they were simply just too thoroughly beaten down.
Judo throws on a hard surface dangerous. An interviewer was “teasing” Ronda Rousey so she’d throw him for demonstration sake and on a padded floor she broke his ribs. Imagine a suplex landing on the neck or head.
Sekiro actually does a really good job at this by making it so almost all enemies need to be executed for them to die, and the executions all involve Sekiro stabbing through unarmored areas like the collar or underarm Theres also a miniboss in full plate armor who literally can't take damage and must be killed by throwing them off a cliff
That's why you oil the blade, so the blood doesn't stick and clog it up - it also acts as a sort of lubricant so the fat and muscles don't stick as well. Before every battle you'd probably sharpen the blade and keep it well maintained, so that it doesn't get too blunt (swords don't need to be razor sharp to cut well - it comes from how good the users edge alignment and body mechanics are)
A surgeon once told me that one of the most aggravating things about his job was how fat would stick to the blade of his scalpel, effectively dulling the shit out of it.
Ikr it slows you down because of the weight, your stamina decreases faster because of the weight, your weakest point is your face so putting armor there just lessens your peripheral vision and reaction time because your face is cocooned into an overload of armor
@@Sinvm5fz Armor was pretty light and allowed for freedom of movement. I mean who would want to wear it if it became too much of a hindrance? As for weak points the only weak points were the joints. I do agree on the helmet bit though it was hot and depending on the style it did impair vision. However considering you became immune to everything but blunt weapons and some stabby daggers it's a pretty good trade off. I'd take full plate over anything anyday.
3:11 Quick little clarification: A pole axe wasn't "a spear with a big spike on the end", that's literally just a spear lol. A poleaxe was a large polearm combining three different weapon types: a hammer, an axe, and a spear. Also, poleaxe spear points couldn't "penetrate armor effectively". Sure, you might get an inch or half inch in, but then your poleaxe is stuck, your enemy is not dead, and now they're angry. Polearms weren't effective against armor because they could thrust, they were effective against armor because they could smash. At 3:18, are they stabbing a car hood? Lmao, that's a terrible example for so many reasons, but chief among them is a car hood isn't properly hardened or as thick as proper plate armor. That would be like shooting through a dinner plate and saying "this gun can penetrate bullet proof vests!" The best way to hurt someone decked out in medieval armor is to just bludgeon them. Concussive force will hurt even if the concussive object doesn't touch the opponents skin. You can daze, break bones, and even damage the armor through sheer blunt force. This is why big meaty pole arms and warhammers were the kings of armor crushing.
@sgt dornan sounds familiar, but idk. Nerd just did some quick searches I think, best to go to the pros like Skallagrim, Shadiversity, and despite my dislike for him, Metatron. All very knowledgeable.
JadenStar10 I just don’t like them. The show directors seemed to want to make them like Mongols but forgot what made the mongols good and made everybody else incompetent. The way they were used in the book was better
@@astartesfanboy5294 I actually liked them, like alot. They just got ruined, and their previous challenge for crossing the sea and being scared of boats and shit was ruined, also their principle against money was ruined. They should've been mroe steadfast in their beliefs, being an Essosi Regiment of Daenarys, guarding her Kingdom in Essos incase she failed in Westeros.
You are forgetting the level disparity. In medieval times the heroes were typically lvl 60+ with epic and legendary weapons. The enemy soldiers were typically lvl 10 with common weapons. With such a level difference the leather and plate armor cannot withstand the slashing from such high level equipment and people.
True that. Not to forget, level 60+ Medieval Heroes also had high mana for repetitive use of their Ultimate Skill, regenerative mana potions, and additional hit points from Clan memberships. Their opponents never stood a chance.
@@judahzombiefreak Name one period where they used hardened leather. You can't because there is none. It was linen armor and/or shields until mail was cheap and easy to get. Edit: For Europe. Japan and China used layers of hardened leather but Western Europe did not.
@@matthewcooper4248 I agree, hardened leather was more of a commodity for the rich of the time, even then, they still did not use it unless it was for a special occasion like a parade or a feast.
Hardened leather was used mainly in asia, so he isnt wrong, since he never specifically said that this video is about European history. There are even a few clips of katanas and asian movies, so yeah hes not wrong.
It is unlikely that hardened leather was one of the most common forms of armour. Gambeson was a cheaper, and just as effective alternative. The cost of raising cows and curing the leather probably meant that leather would be used more sparingly, and probably not as armour due to leather offering little to no advantage over gambeson while being more difficult to produce in large quantities. Leather is also valuable as it can be used where linen cannot. For example, belts and harnesses. As such, I believe that these items would be prioritised, leaving little leather to be made into armour. In conclusion, I believe your claim that leather armour was one of the most common forms of armour to be incorrect. Shadiversity has done various videos on leather armour, and I believe his points to be valid. I'll try to edit this post to include a link when I can. Megatron also has made a video on the subject. I believe they have points that may interest you. ruclips.net/video/-uWDCDJD_4w/видео.html (Just search shadiversity leather armour)
@@planetside9714 that is just not true, at all. Swords 'could' at times be a secondary weapon, to a musket, pistol, pike, spear, polearm etc. But i cannot think of a single example of a sword being a tertiary weapon. a weapon that size isn't carried if you have two other weapons, this is real life, not skyrim. Also plenty of soldiers/warriors carried swords as their primary weapon throughout the pre-industrial age. not all, but plenty. even in the era of the comprehensive armour plate in the 1400/1500's swords were a primary weapon for some soldier types. Full armour protection was rare, few could afford to buy it or get lucky enough to acquire a suit that fitted well enough by other means. Swords were not primary weapons in armoured fighting during that period, but among the lesser troops, they still were. They were also still effective weapons for fully armoured fighters, and were often carried alongside a lance or polearm. You cant kill an armoured man by slashing at him, but you can use a sword to thrust though joints, eyeslits or the back of the legs etc. Swords also make good wrestling weapons, with arm bars, headlocks and pommel/guard strikes all taught in the armoured combat manuals of the time. The video makes a good point about sword slashes not being a big danger to armoured men, but you have gone too far the opposite way to saying that swords themselves were not useful. the historical record is absolutely clear on this, yes, they were still useful, at all times, by most soldiers.
@@jamess2873 this discussion takes place pre gunpowder. What do you mean by "that size". Of course no one would carry a zweihänder or longsword as a secondary weapon. OFC " some" soldiers have swords as their primary, but its just a small amount in general. The scenario I was referring to was a knight (on horse), the Elite of troops. They would be armed with a lance and a backup weapon preferably a mace, when talking about the aforementioned time period. In this case you would only have a sword as your second, but more likely as a tertiary weapon, if at all.
@@planetside9714 If you limit it to pre-gunpowder hand weapons(1480ish) then that makes the sword more prevalent as a primary weapon, not less, because you are are before the pike and shot era where swords were really only used by cavalry and officers. Its weird that you have narrowed it down retrospectively to horse mounted knights pre gunpowder, but even in that narrow category swords were not tertiary weapons. a knight in the period 1100-1500 would have carried a lance or spear, and then a sword, mace or other single handed weapon depending on period/fashion. saying preferably a mace is far too broad. Maces were, of course, common, but nowhere near universal. and in any case, it would be highly unlikely, if not almost unheard of, to carry a lance and then a mace AND sword. So its still not a tertiary weapon. for most of the period 1100 to 1300ish, it would have been lance and sword in the majority of cases. only when plate armour became more comprehensive in 1300-1350 did maces, warhammers etc. become more popular. And no, by 'that size' i am not speaking of Zweihanders, nor did i indicate that. I am talking about single-handed or longsword, in other words, typical battlefield weapons, not extreme cases. but it is still a large weapon to have on your hip when mounted, and just not that practical to have two weapons on your belt if you are carrying a lance. if both weapons are on one side they will foul and possibly even damage each other. if they are on opposite sides one would be on the wrong side for drawing. From 1100/1150 to 1600ish The 'tertiary' weapon would have been a dagger, almost always. I'm not aware of a single contemporary artwork or description showing a knight carrying a spear, mace/hammer AND a sword, or of one carrying 4 weapons with a dagger as the 4th. it's just not realistic, swords were not tertiary weapons in any normal usage, or perhaps at all. But, the conversation wasn't about knights of that particular time period, it was clearly more general. footsoldiers, or even knights on foot, would often have had Swords as primary weapons depending on which part of the middle ages and which role. it wasn't uncommon, the historical record is very clear on this.
@@jamess2873 My point was about the era where people start to wear armor on their whole body and before gunpowder got to it. I just did not wanted to write an essay. Why on earth would you use the sword as a backup weapon that would perform incredibly poorly on the battlefield in most circumstances. Swords are harder to make, more expensive and less effective compared to a spear (also dependant on different factors). Only a fool would use swords against fully armored opponents and where even the common troops are comparatively very well armored.
In any case the point of the video remain true: slashing is generally ineffective especially against armoured enemies (even against unarmored enemies it would still likely not be lethal unless you slashed a vital part like the neck; peoples regularily survive bullet wounds while ignoring the pain thanks to adrenaline)
@@KalashVodka175 but against unarmored you need to consider: 1. You don't need to kil guy, you need to make him unable to fight 2. In medieval surgery wasn't XX centaury-grade.
@@Petaurista13 Those are fair points I agree; tho slashing remain a problem still because of pain tolerance and adrenaline Cause unless you slash a vital area; the primary method by wish a slashing will cause the opponent to be neutralized or killed is by bleeding them dry and causing pain; bleeding is lethal but may take several minutes while adrenaline can simply cancel out pain for a few minutes; which is enough for the opponent to fight back
Although everything about light armor and beyond is generally true, the idea that the naked human body can't receive fatal or debilitating damage aside from deep thrusts or throat slits is ridiculous. Also the idea that you need to kill every enemy soldier in a battle field is not true. The shoulder, knees, and ankles are all full of superficial ligaments. Injuring them means your opponent cant swing back at you, walk, or even stand up. The same is true for damage to tendons and large muscles in the chest, back, and arms. Just think of how many prisoners have died from tiny shanks made out of toothbrushes and razor blades. Imagine what a 4lb long sword or a gladius can do to the unprotected body.
I agree but its all on a case by case basis. I worked in a prison for six months and we had an inmate get stabbed in the face and neck with a shank made out of a paint roller 43 times and he lived.
@@nethandelwampa116 The argument im making isn't necessarily that superficial wounds are lethal, but that they are incapacitating enough to keep an opponent grounded. In your specific example the guy may have lived but i doubt he was a threat to anyone after getting stabbed repeatedly in the face. So the same must be true in a historical battle field setting.
MrGrimmer in modern warfare now it is considered better to wound an enemy soldier than kill them. Because when you kill a soldier it’s just one person down. but if you injure them, they may need up to two more people to treat them and get them clear from the battlefield. So I’d imagine it would be pretty much the same in melee warfare, try to get as many enemy soldiers out of the battle as quick as possible.
@@Jupiter.141 Alot of people give the game bad reviews because of that reason lol. They think it should be unrealistic and the game is way to hard for them.
Well in end game with a secret longsword you can still cleave your way through armored ennemies but generally yes, it definitely encourages you to act the right way
>Talks about Pollaxe/Poleaxe >Mentions only the spike but not the hammer head opposite to the axe head >MFW bruh.jpg Also doesn't mention things like maces and war hammers.
Exactly what I was thinking about. He mentioned using the pommel of a sword for bashing, but completely overlooked the hammer in the polearm, which was designed to crush enemy skulls and bones, or at least cause concussions in heavily armored targets!
That’s why I love Sekiro’s deathblows, they almost always aim to the weak points of armoured opponents, it’s such a good detail in animation management. (Apart from the leap deathblow that stabs the whole blade in the neck of the grounded opponent looking like he’s stabbing through the ground too. A good slit to the throat would have been better. Like the one the samurai does at the fallen opponent in the cinematic intro while the desperate bloodied guy is looking them)
@@AndrewB23 That’s false. At best a duel between two well armoured opponent would last around a minute or so. Remember that the person doesn’t need to penetrate through flesh to kill a person. Concussions and other methods of grappling is enough to finish an opponent. In fact it would be the complete opposite, fights would be too short.. The movie. “The king” demonstrates this very well. Despite some historical inaccuracies in the armour and story, what it does very well is portraying the brutality of combat. People used, axes, pole arms, maces and even their fist. That’s how medieval combat was truly like, it was brutal and quite frankly in my opinion, it’s more entertaining than the typical trope of sword slashing that is just bland and silly.
@@egoamigo-1377 The problem is that the sword has become the “hero weapon” in cinema culture, especially when regarding medieval combat. I would love for movie protagonist to use something else for once, since they don’t really care for realism much anyway. An axe is still common in shows like Vikings, but what about a polearm, or something else? Or maybe i just played too much dark souls..
@@MrPatrickbuit Nope it’s a general trend amongst Hollywood and games. Swords are always given attention and pole arms are left in the dust. What many people don’t consider is that swords in itself is quite difficult to create and expensive to produce with only the rich upper class being able to afford it if you look at it in a medieval context. And when those who could afford it finally got it, they rarely use it as it’s somewhat useless when you’ll be facing plate armour and brigandines. The usefulness of swords technically came in the early modern periods where full body armour is less common but by that point warfare is more about long distance pike shot tactics with canons, pikes and arquebuses rather than the typical bulrush tactics that Hollywood always like to portray. So swords therefore were mostly there for show as a status quo which I guess thats where those trope comes from, as the sword symbolises chivalry and thus a “hero weapon” may will as depicted in artworks, plays movies and ultimately video games. Everything relating to man at arms in the medieval period is so overlooked at and watered down. It’s a fascinating period with diverging tactics and martial arts yet we’re given this safe approach that distorts the reality of how it actually was back then. And even when the characters uses the sword they just swing it like it’s a bat rather then how it should be used against armour. Things like half sword, murder strokes, grapple are techniques that is so overlooked and in my opinion would make combat scenes way more interesting when presented on screen.
We need a movie featuring realistic combat, with the protag switching weapons to overcome different enemies, strategic choices in the order in which they are fought etc!
Never going to happen, why? Way too dangerous to do on set, can result in lethality actually. Not only that but the realistic time to kill someone in battle was 5-8 minutes per a person. So first you want a movie, so you're going to need the introductory plot, and all of the talking cinematics then we go to the fight scenes and calculating how large battles usually are you're looking at fight scenes that would make movies 3 hours to watch, and we are going to watch the hero try to kill complete nobodies for 5-8 minutes before we get to the antagonist? Absolutely boring. It's never going to happen.
@@hahahahano3937 battlefield fights with weapons and armor were 5-8 minutes per person, but hand-to-hand fighting with nothing but clothes and fists usually only last a few seconds. you could easily start a movie with that kind of raw combat before moving on to all the gear. also, realistic combat that would center on a fighting protag isn't going to involve an army so large battles wouldn't even be a part of the film.
leather is only useful as a clothing and probably only used but merchants and not by any medieval soldiers because a Gambeson is still a very effective armor even without chainmail.
@@elsmoshsuperfan8146 λινοθώραξ "wearing a breastplate of linen" is the original greek term, wool an linnen were the prime sources of fabric. Even if linnen grows better in northern Europe, there are also nearly no tin deposits in the mediterranean region, does this mean the the greeks didn't have bronze either? Well leather swords would not have been able to penetrate leather armor...
I really want more film and entertainment to handle combat more realistically. I feel like a narrative could really benefit from the author/director setting up a world where the protagonist never really meets passive opposition and really has to think about how they’re going to overcome their opponents.
Well personally I'd at least like it to make a bit more sense. If you want your protagonist to effortlessly defeat armoured opponents, give them a blunt weapon or a poleaxe
@@solthegamer3769 but bro is it entertaining it nice to see it makes sense in movies but if the movie fiction let it stay fiction like 300 would you change that epic movie it's full of lies and shit but its fucking awesome so my short sword goes wooosh
@@Covey7342 He criticizes how movies and media depict warriors slashing at armored opponents, when that wouldn't do anything because they're armored. That was the point of the video. Try to keep up.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 linothorax aint leather homeboy. Its made out of linen glued together. Why do you think its called lino + thorax in the first place?
You were using good testing footage, as well as some pretty trashy footage. Also excuse me, a polaxe is not a spear and it’s main method of defeating heavy armoured enemies was bashing them with the hammer and not stabbing, which is rather ineffective against plate armour, even with a polearm. The overall message is correct and should be common knowledge. Edit: leather was probably not very common for making armour. Edit 2: spelling
Poleaxe is literally pole axe as far as I know. It's axe on pole, sometimes combined with spear. Because spear usually have big spike at the end (exception is basic spear which is sharpened stick). And I'm not medieval fights expert but stabbing against plate of metal? Lol. It would be possible I think, but when aiming between plates or sth.
Thank you, as an armour lover there is nothing more infuriating for me then the "armour is usless" trope. Whats almost as infuriating is the armour makes you slow and incapable of moving myth still present in most media.
Armor's ability to affect movement varies based on armor type, and ironically people get armor's affect all wrong. For example, plate only inhibits about 95% of natural movement, whereas chain-mail can inhibit 70% of natural movement. The main issue I have is with plate armor which is never portrayed as highly-advanced as it actually is.
@@ocek2744 Didn't know that about chain mail but it makes sense because it's more like a heavy cloth. Plate is made to fit the wearer and is typically segmented and structured in ways that provide as much freedom of movement as possible. Watching them, they can roll around, climb, even do things as silly as work out at the gym. Plate armor isn't nearly as inhibiting as some people tend to think.
@@cvernon5256 u know, i have no real life experience... But seeing plate armor always madw me wonder, are not plated armor supposed to be more flexible and easier to move ? They should definitely keep u more agile than a heap of iron mail allover ur body... I dont get it
Gonna be honest, the title did clickbait me. I was like "slashing definitely does kill people". Then saw it was more about the effectiveness of armour in movies and games.
Still yiu cant just slash everything alone fighting is and was mostly a group thing. It doesn't matter that mutch how good you are in a Duell if you are facing a spear shieldwall.
@@matthewcooper4248 This was months ago so I forgot what we were talking about, but not all Clickbait is bad, you need to get peoppe to click your video somehow.
I'd argue that like 90% or more of anything a "hero" does in an action movie is unrealistic... something as seemingly simple as catching yourself with one hand while falling. I challenge everyone to hang by one hand without even jumping to catch the bar, and you'll find out just how ridiculous this is. Unless you're some beast gym rat, more than likely you couldnt hold yourself with one hand for more than 1 second.
@@elsmoshsuperfan8146 I doubt it. Wool's a bit shit for anything other than keeping you warm, but I suppose if there was enough of it it might stop a peasant's spoon. Besides, linen was way easier to make than plate armour. It was also, like, 100x cheaper.
I remember reading a crusaders account of charging into a group of pikemen on his armored warhorse and he said the weight of all the pikes brought his horse to the ground and he would have died if one of his noble friends didn't charge in with another group of knights and force the pikes away, he said his horse lived and he continued fighting on his horse for several more days. Can you make a video about medieval horse armor and how difficult it actually was to bring down and kill a knight in plate armor mounted on an armored warhorse because I find that story incredible in every game I've played pikes instantly kill horsemen.
Well... slashing is the easiest way to protect your stuntmen, flows extremely well in choreography and makes everything quite a bit quicker in the dance of fight choreography. Besides if I wanted to watch realistic combat I wouldn’t be turning on the tv in the first place, I’d come to youtube and watch fencing matches or body cam from soldiers. Seriously stuntmen take enough damage as it is, anytime you are using blunt force it’s a lot harder to fake and often times they just don’t bother, they’ll just be like “just brace and maybe we’ll get you a little padding” but for effect your still gonna feel the full brunt of the actor laying into you with a prop sword, even heavy plastic hurts, slashing let’s you just run it over someone, or hit and keep moving to disperse the energy. I’d honestly rather better treated stuntmen who can do cooler things for a longer time in the long run as opposed to more realistic combat which... because it’s more realistic... actually hurts more. It’s fun to be like “that wouldn’t work, that’s not how it happens” but we should remember these tactics are in place for a reason, and those are actual people on the screen who actually have to feel what your seeing to a degree. Think Jackie Chan, as realistic as it gets on film, but he’s payed for that, he’s broken every conceivable bone in his body and has had to delay shooting or even worse due to the injuries he’s suffered on set.
@@Defender78 Not pepper spray. Mace is a blunt weapon with a heavy head. Unless you are trying to make a funny comment, in which case, ignore this one...
As soon as you said "In medieval days, the most common type of armor, was layered linens, and hardened leather" i disliked lol layered linens? Correct, but hardened leather is very inaccurate lol
Hardened leather was definitely part of the armor people used. I understand you mean a full leather armor wasn't a thing, which is right it wasn't. But hardened leather was definitely something used in the make of various armors
@@ratlab5680 Leather was sometimes used for straps on armor, or for scabbards. But It definitely wasn't how this video made it seem. I've seen some paintings which suggest that sometimes people would wear leather OVER TOP their plate armor. Which could be mistaken for armor that is only comprised of leather
@@zerozeroone4424 No mate, leather was used for more than straps. Lamellar armour for example would use leather as the "plating" or as the foundation for it
@@ratlab5680 It wasn't very common though. A more common version of this is Brigandine. I just hate how so many "documentaries" and shit get leather armor wrong, and make it seem like it was a common thing that all soldiers in medieval Europe wore
Another thing that bothers me, is how people slice someone's neck with a 3mm deep cut and they just instantly die. I've seen far too many videos and accounts of people suffering such injuries in real life. They take minutes to die, screaming and wailing sometimes from pain whilst they bleed out. It takes a lot of effort too, sinews and such take some force to get through. From my reading in fact, general Ranger/SEAL doctrine for killing people silently recommends NOT using a knife, as it is a long drawn out way to kill someone with a high likelihood of them being able to scream or raise the alarm before they die.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! Movies and games have gotten away with this for way too long. LOL The whole reason armor exists is to protect against slashing and stabbing weapons. LOL Armor works! Medieval reenactments are great. But here's the thing. Millions of warriors have been killed in many battles throughout history. Weapons work too. Weapons wielded by skilled warriors will take down an enemy soldier for sure, regardless of armor. The targets are small. So accuracy is needed. Head, neck, inner arm, inner thigh, or using a larger blunt force weapon on the head like a war hammer, club, or mace, regardless of helmet, can kill or severely injure an enemy soldier. A well placed stab, accurate slash, or crushing blow with a large heavy weapon will incapacitate an enemy combatant. And yeah, you're right, exhaustion would be a problem in battle. It makes you wonder how long battles actually last. How did warriors survive the battle with tens of thousands of fighters on both sides? Think of how long a battle like that would take. Exhaustion would set in very quickly...it would seem. Great videos! Keep up the great work!
Fighting against armor is challenging, fighting in armor is actually less exhausting than fighting without it. Armor covers the defensive aspects of fighting, so you don't have to worry so much about evading and parrying strikes, just take the blow on the armor and let it do its job.
@@Jardonius eight? Well this is the number of khorne,god of war in the wharammer universe and his favorite weapon is the chainaxe so if it was an intentional reference,it's well played
@@timerertim Definitely. I just noticed he did say "with the pommel", while the technique is using the crossguard. (Obviously the pommel should be unscrewed to end your opponent rightly;-)
I don't mind slashing scenes as long as the mail characters army comes in and finishes them off on the background while their kneling or on the ground, some movies do it right.
LOTR wizards and ubermensch descendants of Numenor wielding magic forged elf blades capable of cutting into mountain troll with no damage to the blade. Achellies essentially a superhuman killing machine capable of going to to toe with certain greek gods with his battle rage alone, and has divine weapons and armor. Dont know the name of the asian guy but he weilds the power of almighty power of Kung F.U. The ability to walk on water, balance on the tippy top of bamboo and murder dozens of armed opponents with your bare hands, then turns into one man army with a +1 sword. If anyone could cut through armored mooks with ease it would be these guys. NOTE: This is just a goof.
There was a scene in the original 'Spartacus' where Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) has 3 colours of paint put on him, while the instructor explains in what order the gladiators should go for {I'm aware that few historical gladiator bouts were death-matches, but they did kill criminals _ad gladium_ which was not the same as a gladiator fight-proper}: - Red: neck - heart - Instant Kill; always go for 'red' first - Blue: arms - legs - Cripple; go for the Cripple before the Slow Kill - Yellow: chest - gut - Slow Kill To paraphrase the trainer: A Slow Kill may have just enough in them to kill you before they bite it
I believe sword or knife training revolve around joints or weak points, I suspect there was a form of unarmed combat in cqc similar to grappling or jutsu, where enemies are swept of there feet or smart strategic manuvering to engulf you're enemies and impale them
Well, I hate to be that one person telling you this, but.. could you please give credit to those channels from which you took some small clips from their videos to produce yours? (I know some clips are pretty obvious, such as Lotr and Ryse; but for example when you explained how chainmail could protect someone from sword slashing you took a small clip from a Skallagrim's video) (And IDK if with your newer videos you now do give credit to any channel from which you take some of their content to produce yours; if you now do that, well, my bad if I just typed this in vain).
I’d argue that it depends on where exactly you’re slashing. The thick, heavy, multi-layered leather chest piece? Yeah, probably useless. The unprotected throat? More than likely deadly.
that’s literally a sin seriously how are you gonna slash armour and kill them in one shot like i agree so much you literally impale a dude in the face or a not armoured location lol or just wait for them to lose stamina and slap the shit out of them when they are pretty useless with defensive blocks lol i agree lol
This is all true, but do you expect them to change this? No. I hope they don't so you mean making every fight agaisnt a nobody in a game or movie go from two seconds to three minutes and make already almost two hour movies take three or four? Do you really want your gaming experience go from 5 hours to 8 hours? Yeah no I wouldn't think so. Slashing is unrealistic but it's better for both movies and games.
@@hahahahano3937 Well no you just have your character use a different weapon then generic sword #28483. Give them a poleaxe, a mace, a halberd etc. All of these deal with armour (and are far superior weapons in just about every way) to a sword
@@solthegamer3769 It does, it can make games feel bloaty besides there are many games that don't use the slashing mechanic. The slashing mechanic is found in DMC, Dark Souls, etc. Meanwhile MORDHAU would be more your taste.
Honestly a big hammer would be a much better weapon against armor, aka Gendry from GOT and I guess Robert his dad as well. As he said himself he crushed in Rhaegar’s ribs and shattered his armor (the rubys spilling everywhere) using his hammer that he used. Also if you hit someone hard enough with a big hammer it would cause the armor to actually work against them and keep the pressure on to the point they may not even be able to remove it as it compressed their broken bones and organs. I thought the idea of broad swords was that they worked in such a way where you didn’t have to stab someone to do major damage do to their weight and shape of the blade. I feel like a Rapier would be a great sword for chain mail by the way but I’m pretty sure that they didn’t exist in the same part of the world as chain-male lol.
One issue here; leather as armor was quite uncommon. It would tend to be gambeson which is made from cloth. This is an incredibly effective armor that would be worn in combination with chain or plate armor, and was ubiquitous to medieval armoring... Leather was popularized by video games and movies, because it looks cool. It is cool when games like Witcher 3 actually include a lot of gambeson appearing armor sets and I think when discussing a topic like this it’s important to point out gambeson was pervasive, not leather.
You don't have to kill the enemy, just incapacitate them. Even a shallow slashing wound would be enough to do that, between pain, shock and bloodloss leaving the enemy unable to stand on their feer. Even if you don't cut through the armor or skin, the sheer force transmited to internal organs may cause some serious injuries, internal bleeding and potentially be fatal.
I kinda agree, but this video is terribly misinformed. Hardned leather being common, the description of poleaxes, the car door. I get a feeling he watched a few Skallagrim and Matt Easton videos, but generally has no idea about how steel and medieval weaponry work.
Everyone who comes on here and comments saying something is wrong just watch history videos. Most of them get their facts from the same RUclipsrs like shadiversity, skallagrim, metatron. It’s funny how if you watch them as well everyone repeats the same thing and you start to recognize which video they got their facts from lol.
funny . that happened to spartacus not tv shows or movies but in real story he was trying to get to the general of roman legions to kill and demoralise roman legions lets say he got surrounded between 2 or 4 first cohorts. first cohorts guarded general in the battle crassus had 6-8 of them. first cohort had 800 soldiers and 200 helpers in solid formation and he had 8 times of that.
The exhaustion thing is completely plot armored that’s why I like daredevil the tv show figh scenes so much. U can see how exhausted he gets after fighting just a couple of people. Honestly if u ask me adding exhaustion to movie fight scenes is way better then not
to find anything remotely realistic in movies and games is probably harder than pointing out the unrealistic nature of them... In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a movie that depicts a realistic scene, for example, a gun fight scene. Spoiler, you will never find it.
Bludgeon weapons are the way to go. Even if your opponent has the best armor available, a warhammer will still smash and break bones just from the force alone.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see a movie reviewer so competent in armor and fencing. Usually it`s a popular channel doing "historical" evaluation of a movie or a game based on a popular tropes.
Always drives me nuts when "bad guys" are killed so easily, especially when wearing armor. Why even wear it if you are killed in a single flick of the wrist? It's one of the reasons I enjoyed Kingdom Come Deliverance so much. It made armor actually matter for you and the enemy. Not a 1:1 recreation but using a slashing weapon against plate armor was going to be way more difficult than using a blunt weapon.
most effective weapon in those times was a blunt weapon for the untrained and an expert would choose his/hers blunt because it doesn't take much knowledge to know if you slam someone in the head with a mace helmet or no chances are they are dead dying or too fucked up to mess with you and an expert would use whatever they were proficient with
Yeah with maces, you didn't have to worry about edge alignment. Hammers might have been a bit more difficult to use. But even well-trained experts would often opt for a blunt weapon if they were going up against well armored opponents.
Ok but like, are you telling me a spinning one handed slash across an armored enemy's belt line where you drop to one knee and slowly look up at the camera as they fall isn't really an instant kill technique?
Leather armour ain’t cheap since you have to kill a cow or anything that’s got leather instead a warrior would probably be wearing a gambeson which is made from layers of linen and wool
Finally someone is talking about this! I always had a hard time watching theses kind of fight scenes because I couldn’t get over the fact that everyone died from a slightly scratch on their armor
it would be completely unrealistic if they had no armour, and the enemies didn't even have weapons, because they would simply overwhelm you with numbers, and kick you to death. The only 100% successful technique VS. multiple attackers is good cardio.. in other words, being able to run away, split them up and tackle the attackers one on one. Or just run from them and don't fight at all, which is the safest way.
That wouldn't be realistic at all. Realistically if the henchmen the protagonist has to face were unarmed and unarmored, they would be terrified, and even though they could overwhelm with numbers, nobody wants to go first and die, and chances are they will just run away.
So two things: Leather wasn't necessarily cheap. Not even the thicc pigs leather because it had to be treated and boiled. BUT it was something people could do, just like layering 20-30 layers of hemp or linen into a thicc ass shirt called gamberson. Secondly, most chainmail had parts that used smaller links, for more flexibility and partially to catch thinner blades/splinters. Those can be the neck or any joint. Smaller links does mean more links, sure, but also less energy needed to break them, and at some point you're just unable to rivit them making welding or even just bending them closed the best option. Those are also weak points that can be abused. Oh and something small, Poleaxes had a spike on their bottom as well and were used not only to stab em with the pointy end, as they usually had two pointy ends, one cutting edge that could cut certain types of armors and a flat end to whack 'em.
Leather armor in medieval times? No. Layered linens as gamblesons, aketons, etc, had thin leather as outer layer only in very extremely rare cases, this mostly for use in public events by nobility, to be fashionable and avoid a stab at the same time, still the leather was not the protective part. Brigantine had sometimes leather as outer layer, some few cases again, and here the leather use was to keep the metal plates together, this because of rivets gnawing at cloth usually (leather strings were sometimes used too to keep the plates together but were a less reliable solution). Leather was not to protect, the protection is the iron/steel or linen part. Again, leather once cut or pierced, you could not repair it, plus it didn't let you cool down the body at all, they used thick fabric when possible instead, more breathable and once sewn it's like new. Plus a dry leather creak and break very easily, it dries very fast, you need additional maintenance to keep it proper, more the leather, more the time wasted on it, already the armors by default required time to be maintained properly, more time on it was not desired, not on campaigns or battles. Even vikings had chainmails and full iron helmets, the leather components were garments. Before medieval times, there were some cases of leather chest armor on roman soldiers for example but, even in this case most were bronze then iron.
That would be a good combat strategy if you are up against a moron, who's slashing at your armored torso like a complete dumbass. Then once he's done swinging the weapon and knocking himself off-balance in the process, you can bring your weapon down right on his (numb)skull!
Do you agree or disagree that heroes effortlessly slashing through hordes of enemies is a bit unrealistic?
Nerd Explains the only thing I disagree with is your sub count.
I never thought about this. It makes since but what i don't get now is this, How come shields are able to block and deflect, but not the armor.
@@goldenrose223 Yes, indeed, and the logic can go yet further. The chain mail and plate armor is made with the same high degree of quality materials and artful forging processes as that which is utilized in the forging of swords. If the chest plate of an enemy is so easily cleaved through, what would keep one sword from cutting another in half or vice versa?
Hobby Medieval armorer here, so in most cases unless they're wearing chainmail, poking is the best course of action, just hard to do on set safely
0:31 hurt my soul, for the most part padded armor was the cheapest there was, but leather barely ever existed as armor except to connect plates together
The slashes are a good in-between of history and Cinema. They don't hurt stuntmen as bad and 99% of people don't know the difference.
Plus it’s a lot harder to fake a stab than a slash or punch
@@yeather_6562 most of the time in order to fake a stab at full-speed they either have to use rubber weapons which might wobble unnaturally in the lead-up or use something literally cut in half so nothing actually hits the actor and CG the rest of the blade in.
@@ShiningDarknes "wobble unnaturally in the lead-up" Did you watch Game of Thrones Battle of the bastards? :D
@@palmkruka yeah, they give him a empty sword scabard in that scene so the actor could not get accidentally injured while performing the "fall from the horse" scene for having something long and hard atached to his hilt.
Directors are supposed to be problem solvers right? They can put their creativity to good use and find a cheap way of making realistic sword fights without putting too much strain on the stuntmen.
"A spear with a big spike on the end"
Hmm, yes, the floor here is made of floor
No, the floor here is made of a "big" floor
that is actually the description of poleaxe, the meme doesnt work well here
@@lotrlmao1648 well a pole axe is a modest lenght spear with an axe on it
@@cyberspino6277 halberds, poleaxes, spear, naginata -they r different from each other
Lmao good catch. That aside, from light reading, poleaxes, spears, halberds, etc. fall under a general umbrella called polearms and even with that, most polearms are not described well or labeled definitely, like a poleaxe could be an axe or considered a type of spear. It's all confusing, from how it's being studied, so him saying "a spear with pointy end" feels relatable to how polearms are "defined" or categorized.
1 melee hit = instant kill
10 bullets = barley hurt enemy
Gta logic, smh
@@Mariyoda369 well it's a video game after all 😆
@@wut2697 Yup, and I think thats what makes em fun, they're unrealistic.
100 arrows = gentle tickling
@H T well for hard core is lil bit more realistic 😅
When I was a Roman legionary we used to laugh like crazy at scenes like these.
Which legion where you in, I was a čapæśätïøn
Thats cool, i used to be a centurion in the Jerusalem garrison
when i used to be a persian immortal we kekd at plays like these
Tokuku Sujo Biggus Dickus? Is that you?
Ah man, those were the good ol days, hangin' with the other Legion 13 bruhs, slayin' a bunch of dirty savages, bringin' mad honor to our households....👌😎
Action movies about modern times are worse: people just punch someone once in the chest or judo throw them to the ground and assume that they're knocked out. That's what I liked about John Wick: always make sure they're dead.
I liked how in the Daredevil Netflix series, everyone he punched or knocked down would repeatedly get up and fight again until they were simply just too thoroughly beaten down.
@@167thSpartan Daredevil is one of my favorite shows for the action alone.
Judo throws on a hard surface dangerous. An interviewer was “teasing” Ronda Rousey so she’d throw him for demonstration sake and on a padded floor she broke his ribs. Imagine a suplex landing on the neck or head.
Judo throws on movies are actually underrated. They are dangerous
Phương Vũ well they purposely throw them on their back on pads because they rather not kill or injure people for the sake of a stunt.
Sekiro actually does a really good job at this by making it so almost all enemies need to be executed for them to die, and the executions all involve Sekiro stabbing through unarmored areas like the collar or underarm
Theres also a miniboss in full plate armor who literally can't take damage and must be killed by throwing them off a cliff
ROBERTT
Sekiro changed me. When I fought the armored bridge guy I lost so many times I start beating up my pillows lol
Isn't it funny how a fantasy game like Sekiro gets this right, while not a single historical movie does?
i think thats guy who was lost in japan
ROOBEEEEERRRRRRRRTTTTT
I wasted so much time fighting that guy.
Plus blades dull over time especially when it hits metal and blood has its own problems on the battlefield.
Yah, especially if you're slashing against metal shields and armor and other swords.
That's why you oil the blade, so the blood doesn't stick and clog it up - it also acts as a sort of lubricant so the fat and muscles don't stick as well. Before every battle you'd probably sharpen the blade and keep it well maintained, so that it doesn't get too blunt (swords don't need to be razor sharp to cut well - it comes from how good the users edge alignment and body mechanics are)
That's not a problem, you can clean and sharpen after battle.
That's not a problem, you can clean and sharpen after battle.
A surgeon once told me that one of the most aggravating things about his job was how fat would stick to the blade of his scalpel, effectively dulling the shit out of it.
Growing up I honestly didn’t see the point in armour lol
Chest and stomach armor for arrows. I would wear.
Ikr it slows you down because of the weight, your stamina decreases faster because of the weight, your weakest point is your face so putting armor there just lessens your peripheral vision and reaction time because your face is cocooned into an overload of armor
To all the comments, I'm pretty sure the OP was trying to be "punny"
The weight isn't actually that bad if you train with it.
@@Sinvm5fz Armor was pretty light and allowed for freedom of movement. I mean who would want to wear it if it became too much of a hindrance? As for weak points the only weak points were the joints. I do agree on the helmet bit though it was hot and depending on the style it did impair vision. However considering you became immune to everything but blunt weapons and some stabby daggers it's a pretty good trade off. I'd take full plate over anything anyday.
-"In medival days the most common type of armor was layered linen..."
Ok, that's right.
"...And hardened leather"
Ok, that's not.
Just as I heard it I wanted to point it out too. Good somebody is vigilant 👍👍👍
The Guy even use a skallagrim and schilargladiator video and these guy already proved that even harden leather is like paper to a sword
@@JamesDM4 it's not ideal but paper? nah.
it depends on location actually, europe most definitely didn't use hardened leather but asian countries did.
Hardened Leather is bad amour really.
3:11
Quick little clarification: A pole axe wasn't "a spear with a big spike on the end", that's literally just a spear lol. A poleaxe was a large polearm combining three different weapon types: a hammer, an axe, and a spear. Also, poleaxe spear points couldn't "penetrate armor effectively". Sure, you might get an inch or half inch in, but then your poleaxe is stuck, your enemy is not dead, and now they're angry. Polearms weren't effective against armor because they could thrust, they were effective against armor because they could smash. At 3:18, are they stabbing a car hood? Lmao, that's a terrible example for so many reasons, but chief among them is a car hood isn't properly hardened or as thick as proper plate armor. That would be like shooting through a dinner plate and saying "this gun can penetrate bullet proof vests!" The best way to hurt someone decked out in medieval armor is to just bludgeon them. Concussive force will hurt even if the concussive object doesn't touch the opponents skin. You can daze, break bones, and even damage the armor through sheer blunt force. This is why big meaty pole arms and warhammers were the kings of armor crushing.
Oh man, I was going to bring this up myself. Glad someone else caught this!
Yeah, i wanted to say these as well....
I dont have any training or knowledge but can grasp these pretty well
Stun, em, peel em, and then stab em
@sgt dornan sounds familiar, but idk. Nerd just did some quick searches I think, best to go to the pros like Skallagrim, Shadiversity, and despite my dislike for him, Metatron. All very knowledgeable.
@@travismurtland3257 also schola gladiatoria, who makes an appearance in this video as well.
But what if the sword is on fire...checkmate.
Unless you are the dothraki in the battle of winterfell lol.
Nerd Explains bruh the Dothraki in the GOT show pissed me off so much
@@astartesfanboy5294 nah, I think its the way they were used, Season 7 was really were shit started to fall and led to the disastrous season 8.
JadenStar10 I just don’t like them. The show directors seemed to want to make them like Mongols but forgot what made the mongols good and made everybody else incompetent. The way they were used in the book was better
@@astartesfanboy5294 I actually liked them, like alot. They just got ruined, and their previous challenge for crossing the sea and being scared of boats and shit was ruined, also their principle against money was ruined. They should've been mroe steadfast in their beliefs, being an Essosi Regiment of Daenarys, guarding her Kingdom in Essos incase she failed in Westeros.
You are forgetting the level disparity. In medieval times the heroes were typically lvl 60+ with epic and legendary weapons. The enemy soldiers were typically lvl 10 with common weapons. With such a level difference the leather and plate armor cannot withstand the slashing from such high level equipment and people.
True that. Not to forget, level 60+ Medieval Heroes also had high mana for repetitive use of their Ultimate Skill, regenerative mana potions, and additional hit points from Clan memberships. Their opponents never stood a chance.
Don’t even get me started on their armor set bonuses.
most were pay to win
Lmao 🤣 🤣 🤣
don't forget all the combat level ups and critical points
such an underrated video, should get more views
Agreed. He should reallly credit the footage though.
Yeah
You are right
Bahahahahah it’s a wrong video not an underrated one. If you’re stupid enough to think slicing doesn’t kill people than you shouldn’t deserve views
@@znightowlz6585 if you watched the video he gives good evidence...
No the most common armour was layered linens and mail, hardened leather wasn’t the most common. Layered linen is also called a gambeson.
Depends on the era and setting. Not all times in history with swords are medieval times lol
@@judahzombiefreak Name one period where they used hardened leather. You can't because there is none. It was linen armor and/or shields until mail was cheap and easy to get.
Edit: For Europe. Japan and China used layers of hardened leather but Western Europe did not.
@@matthewcooper4248 I agree, hardened leather was more of a commodity for the rich of the time, even then, they still did not use it unless it was for a special occasion like a parade or a feast.
Hardened leather was used mainly in asia, so he isnt wrong, since he never specifically said that this video is about European history. There are even a few clips of katanas and asian movies, so yeah hes not wrong.
JudahZF pretty much throughout the entirety of history gambeson/cloth armour was the most common and often used in conjunction with other armours
In the words of my HEMA instructor; "unless your opponent is stark naked, stick to stabbing them in the neck"
My instructor swears the family jewels of enemies are easier to hit, but I guess the neck would also do!
0:30
I think Shadiversity would like to disagree with you...
Most historians would too. Curing leather has always been more expensive than quilting linen or wool.
For the leather part, yes. So wpuld every HEMA practitioner and real historian. Gbeson on the other hand...
It is unlikely that hardened leather was one of the most common forms of armour. Gambeson was a cheaper, and just as effective alternative.
The cost of raising cows and curing the leather probably meant that leather would be used more sparingly, and probably not as armour due to leather offering little to no advantage over gambeson while being more difficult to produce in large quantities.
Leather is also valuable as it can be used where linen cannot. For example, belts and harnesses. As such, I believe that these items would be prioritised, leaving little leather to be made into armour.
In conclusion, I believe your claim that leather armour was one of the most common forms of armour to be incorrect.
Shadiversity has done various videos on leather armour, and I believe his points to be valid. I'll try to edit this post to include a link when I can. Megatron also has made a video on the subject. I believe they have points that may interest you.
ruclips.net/video/-uWDCDJD_4w/видео.html
(Just search shadiversity leather armour)
Metatron* Due to that mistake your argument is invalid.
@@wolfsteiin5815Its the Grammar Nazis, hide away, before they gas you for you mistakes :P
@@jadenstar1038 Sweitzer eizen hauer
The point was that most of soldier's armor would prevent get killed by slashing, but yeah a doubt that the peasant had a leather armor.
He also fails to mention weapons meant to slice through peasants or even gambeson like the falchion
This is why Polearms are a thing, and swords are generally a secondary weapon.
Swords would at most be the backup to your backup (depending on time period etc.) on the battlefield
@@planetside9714 that is just not true, at all. Swords 'could' at times be a secondary weapon, to a musket, pistol, pike, spear, polearm etc.
But i cannot think of a single example of a sword being a tertiary weapon. a weapon that size isn't carried if you have two other weapons, this is real life, not skyrim.
Also plenty of soldiers/warriors carried swords as their primary weapon throughout the pre-industrial age. not all, but plenty. even in the era of the comprehensive armour plate in the 1400/1500's swords were a primary weapon for some soldier types. Full armour protection was rare, few could afford to buy it or get lucky enough to acquire a suit that fitted well enough by other means. Swords were not primary weapons in armoured fighting during that period, but among the lesser troops, they still were. They were also still effective weapons for fully armoured fighters, and were often carried alongside a lance or polearm. You cant kill an armoured man by slashing at him, but you can use a sword to thrust though joints, eyeslits or the back of the legs etc. Swords also make good wrestling weapons, with arm bars, headlocks and pommel/guard strikes all taught in the armoured combat manuals of the time.
The video makes a good point about sword slashes not being a big danger to armoured men, but you have gone too far the opposite way to saying that swords themselves were not useful. the historical record is absolutely clear on this, yes, they were still useful, at all times, by most soldiers.
@@jamess2873 this discussion takes place pre gunpowder. What do you mean by "that size". Of course no one would carry a zweihänder or longsword as a secondary weapon.
OFC " some" soldiers have swords as their primary, but its just a small amount in general. The scenario I was referring to was a knight (on horse), the Elite of troops. They would be armed with a lance and a backup weapon preferably a mace, when talking about the aforementioned time period. In this case you would only have a sword as your second, but more likely as a tertiary weapon, if at all.
@@planetside9714 If you limit it to pre-gunpowder hand weapons(1480ish) then that makes the sword more prevalent as a primary weapon, not less, because you are are before the pike and shot era where swords were really only used by cavalry and officers. Its weird that you have narrowed it down retrospectively to horse mounted knights pre gunpowder, but even in that narrow category swords were not tertiary weapons. a knight in the period 1100-1500 would have carried a lance or spear, and then a sword, mace or other single handed weapon depending on period/fashion. saying preferably a mace is far too broad. Maces were, of course, common, but nowhere near universal. and in any case, it would be highly unlikely, if not almost unheard of, to carry a lance and then a mace AND sword. So its still not a tertiary weapon. for most of the period 1100 to 1300ish, it would have been lance and sword in the majority of cases. only when plate armour became more comprehensive in 1300-1350 did maces, warhammers etc. become more popular.
And no, by 'that size' i am not speaking of Zweihanders, nor did i indicate that. I am talking about single-handed or longsword, in other words, typical battlefield weapons, not extreme cases. but it is still a large weapon to have on your hip when mounted, and just not that practical to have two weapons on your belt if you are carrying a lance. if both weapons are on one side they will foul and possibly even damage each other. if they are on opposite sides one would be on the wrong side for drawing. From 1100/1150 to 1600ish The 'tertiary' weapon would have been a dagger, almost always. I'm not aware of a single contemporary artwork or description showing a knight carrying a spear, mace/hammer AND a sword, or of one carrying 4 weapons with a dagger as the 4th. it's just not realistic, swords were not tertiary weapons in any normal usage, or perhaps at all.
But, the conversation wasn't about knights of that particular time period, it was clearly more general. footsoldiers, or even knights on foot, would often have had Swords as primary weapons depending on which part of the middle ages and which role. it wasn't uncommon, the historical record is very clear on this.
@@jamess2873 My point was about the era where people start to wear armor on their whole body and before gunpowder got to it. I just did not wanted to write an essay. Why on earth would you use the sword as a backup weapon that would perform incredibly poorly on the battlefield in most circumstances. Swords are harder to make, more expensive and less effective compared to a spear (also dependant on different factors). Only a fool would use swords against fully armored opponents and where even the common troops are comparatively very well armored.
>speaks of realism sins
>shows footage of a completely debunked history channel documentary with fake tests
Sorry, just passing by...
In any case the point of the video remain true: slashing is generally ineffective especially against armoured enemies (even against unarmored enemies it would still likely not be lethal unless you slashed a vital part like the neck; peoples regularily survive bullet wounds while ignoring the pain thanks to adrenaline)
@@KalashVodka175 but against unarmored you need to consider:
1. You don't need to kil guy, you need to make him unable to fight
2. In medieval surgery wasn't XX centaury-grade.
@@Petaurista13
Those are fair points I agree; tho slashing remain a problem still because of pain tolerance and adrenaline
Cause unless you slash a vital area; the primary method by wish a slashing will cause the opponent to be neutralized or killed is by bleeding them dry and causing pain; bleeding is lethal but may take several minutes while adrenaline can simply cancel out pain for a few minutes; which is enough for the opponent to fight back
Although everything about light armor and beyond is generally true, the idea that the naked human body can't receive fatal or debilitating damage aside from deep thrusts or throat slits is ridiculous. Also the idea that you need to kill every enemy soldier in a battle field is not true.
The shoulder, knees, and ankles are all full of superficial ligaments. Injuring them means your opponent cant swing back at you, walk, or even stand up. The same is true for damage to tendons and large muscles in the chest, back, and arms.
Just think of how many prisoners have died from tiny shanks made out of toothbrushes and razor blades. Imagine what a 4lb long sword or a gladius can do to the unprotected body.
Or, you could simply let them bleed to death
@@strengthcoachsc8669 prisoners are much more valuable
I agree but its all on a case by case basis. I worked in a prison for six months and we had an inmate get stabbed in the face and neck with a shank made out of a paint roller 43 times and he lived.
@@nethandelwampa116 The argument im making isn't necessarily that superficial wounds are lethal, but that they are incapacitating enough to keep an opponent grounded. In your specific example the guy may have lived but i doubt he was a threat to anyone after getting stabbed repeatedly in the face. So the same must be true in a historical battle field setting.
MrGrimmer in modern warfare now it is considered better to wound an enemy soldier than kill them. Because when you kill a soldier it’s just one person down. but if you injure them, they may need up to two more people to treat them and get them clear from the battlefield. So I’d imagine it would be pretty much the same in melee warfare, try to get as many enemy soldiers out of the battle as quick as possible.
Kingdom come deliverance is a game that represents this the right way
True. The game did really followed realistic combat fighting a fully armored enemy using a long sword is literally hell
@@Jupiter.141 Alot of people give the game bad reviews because of that reason lol. They think it should be unrealistic and the game is way to hard for them.
@@slender4713 8+ hours in and i still get my ass beat in fist fights lmao
Well in end game with a secret longsword you can still cleave your way through armored ennemies but generally yes, it definitely encourages you to act the right way
@@benjaminthibieroz4155 "well in hand game?"
>Talks about Pollaxe/Poleaxe
>Mentions only the spike but not the hammer head opposite to the axe head
>MFW
bruh.jpg
Also doesn't mention things like maces and war hammers.
Exactly what I was thinking about. He mentioned using the pommel of a sword for bashing, but completely overlooked the hammer in the polearm, which was designed to crush enemy skulls and bones, or at least cause concussions in heavily armored targets!
That’s why I love Sekiro’s deathblows, they almost always aim to the weak points of armoured opponents, it’s such a good detail in animation management.
(Apart from the leap deathblow that stabs the whole blade in the neck of the grounded opponent looking like he’s stabbing through the ground too. A good slit to the throat would have been better. Like the one the samurai does at the fallen opponent in the cinematic intro while the desperate bloodied guy is looking them)
I feel it would be unrealistic but at the same time who wants to watch a 2 hour long medieval fighting movie where no one dies
Exactly, it's still a movie with a plot if it was "realistic" fight scenes would last from hours to days.
Depend on the genre, if it tries to add realism, then they have to be smart about it, not just bulldoze everything.
@@AndrewB23 That’s false. At best a duel between two well armoured opponent would last around a minute or so. Remember that the person doesn’t need to penetrate through flesh to kill a person. Concussions and other methods of grappling is enough to finish an opponent. In fact it would be the complete opposite, fights would be too short..
The movie. “The king” demonstrates this very well. Despite some historical inaccuracies in the armour and story, what it does very well is portraying the brutality of combat. People used, axes, pole arms, maces and even their fist. That’s how medieval combat was truly like, it was brutal and quite frankly in my opinion, it’s more entertaining than the typical trope of sword slashing that is just bland and silly.
@@egoamigo-1377 The problem is that the sword has become the “hero weapon” in cinema culture, especially when regarding medieval combat. I would love for movie protagonist to use something else for once, since they don’t really care for realism much anyway. An axe is still common in shows like Vikings, but what about a polearm, or something else?
Or maybe i just played too much dark souls..
@@MrPatrickbuit Nope it’s a general trend amongst Hollywood and games. Swords are always given attention and pole arms are left in the dust. What many people don’t consider is that swords in itself is quite difficult to create and expensive to produce with only the rich upper class being able to afford it if you look at it in a medieval context. And when those who could afford it finally got it, they rarely use it as it’s somewhat useless when you’ll be facing plate armour and brigandines. The usefulness of swords technically came in the early modern periods where full body armour is less common but by that point warfare is more about long distance pike shot tactics with canons, pikes and arquebuses rather than the typical bulrush tactics that Hollywood always like to portray.
So swords therefore were mostly there for show as a status quo which I guess thats where those trope comes from, as the sword symbolises chivalry and thus a “hero weapon” may will as depicted in artworks, plays movies and ultimately video games.
Everything relating to man at arms in the medieval period is so overlooked at and watered down. It’s a fascinating period with diverging tactics and martial arts yet we’re given this safe approach that distorts the reality of how it actually was back then. And even when the characters uses the sword they just swing it like it’s a bat rather then how it should be used against armour. Things like half sword, murder strokes, grapple are techniques that is so overlooked and in my opinion would make combat scenes way more interesting when presented on screen.
We need a movie featuring realistic combat, with the protag switching weapons to overcome different enemies, strategic choices in the order in which they are fought etc!
I agree! think a lot of people think realism isn't cinematic, but personally I think it adds so much more depth in a lot of cases.
Never going to happen, why? Way too dangerous to do on set, can result in lethality actually. Not only that but the realistic time to kill someone in battle was 5-8 minutes per a person. So first you want a movie, so you're going to need the introductory plot, and all of the talking cinematics then we go to the fight scenes and calculating how large battles usually are you're looking at fight scenes that would make movies 3 hours to watch, and we are going to watch the hero try to kill complete nobodies for 5-8 minutes before we get to the antagonist? Absolutely boring. It's never going to happen.
Master and Commander was pretty realistic tbf
Look for knight of hope in youtube
@@hahahahano3937 battlefield fights with weapons and armor were 5-8 minutes per person, but hand-to-hand fighting with nothing but clothes and fists usually only last a few seconds. you could easily start a movie with that kind of raw combat before moving on to all the gear.
also, realistic combat that would center on a fighting protag isn't going to involve an army so large battles wouldn't even be a part of the film.
Next to no one used hardend leather, its more of less a a movie Tropes.
not to mention the fact that "hardened" leather we see in movies (0:36 for example) flaps around like a thin cloth while moving
leather is only useful as a clothing and probably only used but merchants and not by any medieval soldiers because a Gambeson is still a very effective armor even without chainmail.
gambeson is better, why using leather if you have a cheaper and better alternative...
@@elsmoshsuperfan8146 wich part of linothorax do you think means leather?
@@elsmoshsuperfan8146 λινοθώραξ "wearing a breastplate of linen" is the original greek term, wool an linnen were the prime sources of fabric.
Even if linnen grows better in northern Europe, there are also nearly no tin deposits in the mediterranean region, does this mean the the greeks didn't have bronze either?
Well leather swords would not have been able to penetrate leather armor...
Not really unrealistic when you conciser a hero like Aragorn to be an 80 year old super human with his lineage blessed by gods and stuff...
So this gives him the power to ignore physics and slash through steel with his sword?
@@KalashVodka175 Yeah, i guess thats what super humans with super weapons do.
I really want more film and entertainment to handle combat more realistically. I feel like a narrative could really benefit from the author/director setting up a world where the protagonist never really meets passive opposition and really has to think about how they’re going to overcome their opponents.
Blunt force trauma FTW.
Good video.
"You would need a lightsaber" 😂
Oh yes you do 😆
Lightsaber? U need a Lifesaver!😏
and you need a penis as women couldn't do it
Or, perhaps, a chainsword
Make sense but if I wanted a realistic movie il watch a documentary intill then my sword goes woosshh
Well personally I'd at least like it to make a bit more sense. If you want your protagonist to effortlessly defeat armoured opponents, give them a blunt weapon or a poleaxe
@@solthegamer3769 but bro is it entertaining it nice to see it makes sense in movies but if the movie fiction let it stay fiction like 300 would you change that epic movie it's full of lies and shit but its fucking awesome so my short sword goes wooosh
Sol the Gamer If you wanted the movie to be realistic than the protagonist will die in 5 minutes in the first battle
@@gadhhfhf9412 true
@@gadhhfhf9412 thats not realistic thats just cynical
Imagine feeling like you can criticize depictions of armour while also preaching that leather armor existed.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 No, it did not, beyond housing coats of plates and vambracing.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 Unfortunately for Greece, it is.
Did we watch the same video? When did he criticize the depiction of armor? I only saw him criticize the depiction of fighting styles.
@@Covey7342 He criticizes how movies and media depict warriors slashing at armored opponents, when that wouldn't do anything because they're armored. That was the point of the video. Try to keep up.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 linothorax aint leather homeboy. Its made out of linen glued together. Why do you think its called lino + thorax in the first place?
You were using good testing footage, as well as some pretty trashy footage. Also excuse me, a polaxe is not a spear and it’s main method of defeating heavy armoured enemies was bashing them with the hammer and not stabbing, which is rather ineffective against plate armour, even with a polearm. The overall message is correct and should be common knowledge.
Edit: leather was probably not very common for making armour.
Edit 2: spelling
Poleaxe is literally pole axe as far as I know. It's axe on pole, sometimes combined with spear. Because spear usually have big spike at the end (exception is basic spear which is sharpened stick). And I'm not medieval fights expert but stabbing against plate of metal? Lol. It would be possible I think, but when aiming between plates or sth.
Thank you, as an armour lover there is nothing more infuriating for me then the "armour is usless" trope. Whats almost as infuriating is the armour makes you slow and incapable of moving myth still present in most media.
Armor's ability to affect movement varies based on armor type, and ironically people get armor's affect all wrong. For example, plate only inhibits about 95% of natural movement, whereas chain-mail can inhibit 70% of natural movement.
The main issue I have is with plate armor which is never portrayed as highly-advanced as it actually is.
French Knight: NOOOO, YOU CAN'T KILL ME IN MY ELABORATE PLATE ARMOUR THAT COST ME THE SAME MONEY AS MY HOUSE
Flemish Peasant: [laughs in goedendag]
Hey now ill have you know bikini armor was quite effective. Joking.
@@ocek2744 Didn't know that about chain mail but it makes sense because it's more like a heavy cloth. Plate is made to fit the wearer and is typically segmented and structured in ways that provide as much freedom of movement as possible. Watching them, they can roll around, climb, even do things as silly as work out at the gym. Plate armor isn't nearly as inhibiting as some people tend to think.
@@cvernon5256 u know, i have no real life experience...
But seeing plate armor always madw me wonder, are not plated armor supposed to be more flexible and easier to move ?
They should definitely keep u more agile than a heap of iron mail allover ur body...
I dont get it
Tell that to the amount of dead Grineer that have been slashed to death by my Exalted Blade.
Gonna be honest, the title did clickbait me. I was like "slashing definitely does kill people". Then saw it was more about the effectiveness of armour in movies and games.
I get what you're saying, just wanted to point out that that isn't how clickbait works. Word has been used so much that it's meaning has been skewed.
Still yiu cant just slash everything alone fighting is and was mostly a group thing. It doesn't matter that mutch how good you are in a Duell if you are facing a spear shieldwall.
@@graphite7898 Having a title that explicitly says slashing doesn't kill and then talking about armor is quite literally the definition of clickbait.
@@matthewcooper4248 This was months ago so I forgot what we were talking about, but not all Clickbait is bad, you need to get peoppe to click your video somehow.
People call click bait on anything they dont think was to their liking aka= all fucking entitled teens who know nothinf
Not to mention that you rarely see weapons like maces and war hammers which were meant to bludgeon heavily armored opponents to death.
I'd argue that like 90% or more of anything a "hero" does in an action movie is unrealistic... something as seemingly simple as catching yourself with one hand while falling. I challenge everyone to hang by one hand without even jumping to catch the bar, and you'll find out just how ridiculous this is. Unless you're some beast gym rat, more than likely you couldnt hold yourself with one hand for more than 1 second.
Welcome back to another episode of : "Your machete is a gardening tool".
You have obviously never seen the movie.
The Philippines begs to differ
Layered linen armour is called gambeson. Just thought you should know. (:
@TheRaellz I'm talking more to the viewers. I'm sure he did know that.
@@elsmoshsuperfan8146 I doubt it. Wool's a bit shit for anything other than keeping you warm, but I suppose if there was enough of it it might stop a peasant's spoon. Besides, linen was way easier to make than plate armour. It was also, like, 100x cheaper.
4:47 Yeah, but now he's got everybody's weapons.
I remember reading a crusaders account of charging into a group of pikemen on his armored warhorse and he said the weight of all the pikes brought his horse to the ground and he would have died if one of his noble friends didn't charge in with another group of knights and force the pikes away, he said his horse lived and he continued fighting on his horse for several more days. Can you make a video about medieval horse armor and how difficult it actually was to bring down and kill a knight in plate armor mounted on an armored warhorse because I find that story incredible in every game I've played pikes instantly kill horsemen.
Well... slashing is the easiest way to protect your stuntmen, flows extremely well in choreography and makes everything quite a bit quicker in the dance of fight choreography. Besides if I wanted to watch realistic combat I wouldn’t be turning on the tv in the first place, I’d come to youtube and watch fencing matches or body cam from soldiers. Seriously stuntmen take enough damage as it is, anytime you are using blunt force it’s a lot harder to fake and often times they just don’t bother, they’ll just be like “just brace and maybe we’ll get you a little padding” but for effect your still gonna feel the full brunt of the actor laying into you with a prop sword, even heavy plastic hurts, slashing let’s you just run it over someone, or hit and keep moving to disperse the energy. I’d honestly rather better treated stuntmen who can do cooler things for a longer time in the long run as opposed to more realistic combat which... because it’s more realistic... actually hurts more. It’s fun to be like “that wouldn’t work, that’s not how it happens” but we should remember these tactics are in place for a reason, and those are actual people on the screen who actually have to feel what your seeing to a degree. Think Jackie Chan, as realistic as it gets on film, but he’s payed for that, he’s broken every conceivable bone in his body and has had to delay shooting or even worse due to the injuries he’s suffered on set.
Axe, Polearms, Arms, and Mace exist for a reason
What does Pepper spray have to do with an axe
@@Defender78 Not pepper spray. Mace is a blunt weapon with a heavy head. Unless you are trying to make a funny comment, in which case, ignore this one...
As soon as you said "In medieval days, the most common type of armor, was layered linens, and hardened leather" i disliked lol
layered linens? Correct, but hardened leather is very inaccurate lol
Hardened leather was definitely part of the armor people used. I understand you mean a full leather armor wasn't a thing, which is right it wasn't. But hardened leather was definitely something used in the make of various armors
@@ratlab5680 Leather was sometimes used for straps on armor, or for scabbards. But It definitely wasn't how this video made it seem. I've seen some paintings which suggest that sometimes people would wear leather OVER TOP their plate armor. Which could be mistaken for armor that is only comprised of leather
@@zerozeroone4424 No mate, leather was used for more than straps. Lamellar armour for example would use leather as the "plating" or as the foundation for it
@@ratlab5680 It wasn't very common though. A more common version of this is Brigandine. I just hate how so many "documentaries" and shit get leather armor wrong, and make it seem like it was a common thing that all soldiers in medieval Europe wore
André Luis no mate, it really wasn’t. Life isn’t a video game mate.
This only means soldiers who participate in wars in the old days suffers tremendously before dying
Pretty much
Another thing that bothers me, is how people slice someone's neck with a 3mm deep cut and they just instantly die. I've seen far too many videos and accounts of people suffering such injuries in real life. They take minutes to die, screaming and wailing sometimes from pain whilst they bleed out. It takes a lot of effort too, sinews and such take some force to get through. From my reading in fact, general Ranger/SEAL doctrine for killing people silently recommends NOT using a knife, as it is a long drawn out way to kill someone with a high likelihood of them being able to scream or raise the alarm before they die.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! Movies and games have gotten away with this for way too long. LOL The whole reason armor exists is to protect against slashing and stabbing weapons. LOL Armor works! Medieval reenactments are great. But here's the thing. Millions of warriors have been killed in many battles throughout history. Weapons work too. Weapons wielded by skilled warriors will take down an enemy soldier for sure, regardless of armor. The targets are small. So accuracy is needed. Head, neck, inner arm, inner thigh, or using a larger blunt force weapon on the head like a war hammer, club, or mace, regardless of helmet, can kill or severely injure an enemy soldier. A well placed stab, accurate slash, or crushing blow with a large heavy weapon will incapacitate an enemy combatant. And yeah, you're right, exhaustion would be a problem in battle. It makes you wonder how long battles actually last. How did warriors survive the battle with tens of thousands of fighters on both sides? Think of how long a battle like that would take. Exhaustion would set in very quickly...it would seem. Great videos! Keep up the great work!
Fighting against armor is challenging, fighting in armor is actually less exhausting than fighting without it. Armor covers the defensive aspects of fighting, so you don't have to worry so much about evading and parrying strikes, just take the blow on the armor and let it do its job.
Lightsaber, or if you’re in a fantasy where you have a blade that is only a couple atoms thick or buffed with magic.
Or the gracious and delicate chainaxe
Aka literall chainsaw axe with a chain that spin ungodly fast
@@sapateirovalentin348 I need eight, *immediately*
@@Jardonius eight? Well this is the number of khorne,god of war in the wharammer universe and his favorite weapon is the chainaxe so if it was an intentional reference,it's well played
I find the idea of a blade only a couple atoms thick kind of humorous, since you'd probably break it swinging through the air lol.
Of all the unrealistic elements of a video game, this is the one they made a video about.
I mean it's the biggest one that flies under the radar. Slashing is the least effective means of fighting but the most prevalent in games.
Because the History channel already made a video on this, so the material was easy to "collate", if you catch my drift!
3:02 was so ridiculous. Imagine fighting for your life and having to whack-a-mole your opponents head lmao
It's like a monty python skit
It was effective and a common technique in the old days.
@@timerertim Definitely. I just noticed he did say "with the pommel", while the technique is using the crossguard.
(Obviously the pommel should be unscrewed to end your opponent rightly;-)
@@misterkami2 I see you are a fellow man of culture
I don't mind slashing scenes as long as the mail characters army comes in and finishes them off on the background while their kneling or on the ground, some movies do it right.
0:32 "The most common type of armor was layered linens and hardened leather"..... oohhh boi, that began wrong
That's why I always check comments first...
LOTR wizards and ubermensch descendants of Numenor wielding magic forged elf blades capable of cutting into mountain troll with no damage to the blade.
Achellies essentially a superhuman killing machine capable of going to to toe with certain greek gods with his battle rage alone, and has divine weapons and armor.
Dont know the name of the asian guy but he weilds the power of almighty power of Kung F.U. The ability to walk on water, balance on the tippy top of bamboo and murder dozens of armed opponents with your bare hands, then turns into one man army with a +1 sword.
If anyone could cut through armored mooks with ease it would be these guys.
NOTE: This is just a goof.
It’s a smart goof, the examples it put are a little stupid since they’re supernatural.
The hobbit and lord rings are fansty it give break
Bad logic there. They still adhere to the general laws of physics, but with added magical elements.
"In medieval times, the most common type of armor was layered linens and hardened leather".
Already not true.
what was then ?
@@NICHTVONBEDEUTUNG1 chain mail
Тимофей Воронов , and gambeson, you don’t want to go to combat with just a shirt under your mail.
@@mockupguy3577 imagine all that chaffing if u dont wear something underneath. XD
There was a scene in the original 'Spartacus' where Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) has 3 colours of paint put on him, while the instructor explains in what order the gladiators should go for {I'm aware that few historical gladiator bouts were death-matches, but they did kill criminals _ad gladium_ which was not the same as a gladiator fight-proper}:
- Red: neck - heart - Instant Kill; always go for 'red' first
- Blue: arms - legs - Cripple; go for the Cripple before the Slow Kill
- Yellow: chest - gut - Slow Kill
To paraphrase the trainer: A Slow Kill may have just enough in them to kill you before they bite it
I believe sword or knife training revolve around joints or weak points, I suspect there was a form of unarmed combat in cqc similar to grappling or jutsu, where enemies are swept of there feet or smart strategic manuvering to engulf you're enemies and impale them
I'll never look at Sword Slashes/Stabs against armor the same again.
right? it's fucking ruined
@@josuelopez3308 sooooooooo......................should we just stick to guns?
hardend lether ehh
shad: so you have chosen death
Shad is shit.
Claims to be an expert but starts off the video saying most common armour was leather armour 🤢
Well, I hate to be that one person telling you this, but.. could you please give credit to those channels from which you took some small clips from their videos to produce yours? (I know some clips are pretty obvious, such as Lotr and Ryse; but for example when you explained how chainmail could protect someone from sword slashing you took a small clip from a Skallagrim's video) (And IDK if with your newer videos you now do give credit to any channel from which you take some of their content to produce yours; if you now do that, well, my bad if I just typed this in vain).
I’d argue that it depends on where exactly you’re slashing.
The thick, heavy, multi-layered leather chest piece? Yeah, probably useless.
The unprotected throat? More than likely deadly.
that’s literally a sin seriously how are you gonna slash armour and kill them in one shot like i agree so much you literally impale a dude in the face or a not armoured location lol or just wait for them to lose stamina and slap the shit out of them when they are pretty useless with defensive blocks lol i agree lol
This is all true, but do you expect them to change this? No. I hope they don't so you mean making every fight agaisnt a nobody in a game or movie go from two seconds to three minutes and make already almost two hour movies take three or four? Do you really want your gaming experience go from 5 hours to 8 hours? Yeah no I wouldn't think so. Slashing is unrealistic but it's better for both movies and games.
@@hahahahano3937 Well no you just have your character use a different weapon then generic sword #28483. Give them a poleaxe, a mace, a halberd etc. All of these deal with armour (and are far superior weapons in just about every way) to a sword
@@solthegamer3769 Still too dangerous on set, and again slashing is safer and progresses the story faster.
@@hahahahano3937 Well it doesn't excuse games or books where you don't have to worry about safety
@@solthegamer3769 It does, it can make games feel bloaty besides there are many games that don't use the slashing mechanic. The slashing mechanic is found in DMC, Dark Souls, etc. Meanwhile MORDHAU would be more your taste.
Kingdom Come deliverance enters the chat: Hello there
Honestly a big hammer would be a much better weapon against armor, aka Gendry from GOT and I guess Robert his dad as well. As he said himself he crushed in Rhaegar’s ribs and shattered his armor (the rubys spilling everywhere) using his hammer that he used. Also if you hit someone hard enough with a big hammer it would cause the armor to actually work against them and keep the pressure on to the point they may not even be able to remove it as it compressed their broken bones and organs. I thought the idea of broad swords was that they worked in such a way where you didn’t have to stab someone to do major damage do to their weight and shape of the blade. I feel like a Rapier would be a great sword for chain mail by the way but I’m pretty sure that they didn’t exist in the same part of the world as chain-male lol.
One issue here; leather as armor was quite uncommon. It would tend to be gambeson which is made from cloth. This is an incredibly effective armor that would be worn in combination with chain or plate armor, and was ubiquitous to medieval armoring...
Leather was popularized by video games and movies, because it looks cool. It is cool when games like Witcher 3 actually include a lot of gambeson appearing armor sets and I think when discussing a topic like this it’s important to point out gambeson was pervasive, not leather.
You don't have to kill the enemy, just incapacitate them. Even a shallow slashing wound would be enough to do that, between pain, shock and bloodloss leaving the enemy unable to stand on their feer. Even if you don't cut through the armor or skin, the sheer force transmited to internal organs may cause some serious injuries, internal bleeding and potentially be fatal.
I kinda agree, but this video is terribly misinformed. Hardned leather being common, the description of poleaxes, the car door. I get a feeling he watched a few Skallagrim and Matt Easton videos, but generally has no idea about how steel and medieval weaponry work.
Everyone who comes on here and comments saying something is wrong just watch history videos. Most of them get their facts from the same RUclipsrs like shadiversity, skallagrim, metatron. It’s funny how if you watch them as well everyone repeats the same thing and you start to recognize which video they got their facts from lol.
funny . that happened to spartacus not tv shows or movies but in real story he was trying to get to the general of roman legions to kill and demoralise roman legions lets say he got surrounded between 2 or 4 first cohorts. first cohorts guarded general in the battle crassus had 6-8 of them. first cohort had 800 soldiers and 200 helpers in solid formation and he had 8 times of that.
If slashing through armor would be so easy, then there were no reason to wear armor.
You know, if i got slashed, i would go down and pretend i am dead for sure
The exhaustion thing is completely plot armored that’s why I like daredevil the tv show figh scenes so much. U can see how exhausted he gets after fighting just a couple of people. Honestly if u ask me adding exhaustion to movie fight scenes is way better then not
Ok, I have to agree that your way of holding sword is more efficient, but is it cool enough?
to find anything remotely realistic in movies and games is probably harder than pointing out the unrealistic nature of them... In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a movie that depicts a realistic scene, for example, a gun fight scene. Spoiler, you will never find it.
Bludgeon weapons are the way to go. Even if your opponent has the best armor available, a warhammer will still smash and break bones just from the force alone.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see a movie reviewer so competent in armor and fencing.
Usually it`s a popular channel doing "historical" evaluation of a movie or a game based on a popular tropes.
Always drives me nuts when "bad guys" are killed so easily, especially when wearing armor. Why even wear it if you are killed in a single flick of the wrist?
It's one of the reasons I enjoyed Kingdom Come Deliverance so much. It made armor actually matter for you and the enemy. Not a 1:1 recreation but using a slashing weapon against plate armor was going to be way more difficult than using a blunt weapon.
most effective weapon in those times was a blunt weapon for the untrained and an expert would choose his/hers blunt because it doesn't take much knowledge to know if you slam someone in the head with a mace helmet or no chances are they are dead dying or too fucked up to mess with you and an expert would use whatever they were proficient with
Yeah with maces, you didn't have to worry about edge alignment. Hammers might have been a bit more difficult to use. But even well-trained experts would often opt for a blunt weapon if they were going up against well armored opponents.
Ok but like, are you telling me a spinning one handed slash across an armored enemy's belt line where you drop to one knee and slowly look up at the camera as they fall isn't really an instant kill technique?
Leather armour ain’t cheap
since you have to kill a cow or anything that’s got leather instead a warrior would probably be wearing a gambeson which is made from layers of linen and wool
Oh yea, it’s very unrealistic. But then again, did we come to these movies for realism?
Main characters armor always works
Its just the side and enemy characters that have armor made of painted cardboard
so in a nutshell, no one died during the medieval era
This is why blunt weapons were used against armor so much bash them and break them no need to stab them
General : the barbarian are attacking towards us, what we gonna do?
Caesar : just bring the machine gun and leopard tanks
Finally someone is talking about this! I always had a hard time watching theses kind of fight scenes because I couldn’t get over the fact that everyone died from a slightly scratch on their armor
it would be completely unrealistic if they had no armour, and the enemies didn't even have weapons, because they would simply overwhelm you with numbers, and kick you to death.
The only 100% successful technique VS. multiple attackers is good cardio.. in other words, being able to run away, split them up and tackle the attackers one on one. Or just run from them and don't fight at all, which is the safest way.
That wouldn't be realistic at all. Realistically if the henchmen the protagonist has to face were unarmed and unarmored, they would be terrified, and even though they could overwhelm with numbers, nobody wants to go first and die, and chances are they will just run away.
So two things:
Leather wasn't necessarily cheap. Not even the thicc pigs leather because it had to be treated and boiled. BUT it was something people could do, just like layering 20-30 layers of hemp or linen into a thicc ass shirt called gamberson.
Secondly, most chainmail had parts that used smaller links, for more flexibility and partially to catch thinner blades/splinters. Those can be the neck or any joint. Smaller links does mean more links, sure, but also less energy needed to break them, and at some point you're just unable to rivit them making welding or even just bending them closed the best option. Those are also weak points that can be abused.
Oh and something small, Poleaxes had a spike on their bottom as well and were used not only to stab em with the pointy end, as they usually had two pointy ends, one cutting edge that could cut certain types of armors and a flat end to whack 'em.
Nice, someone with common sense.
Me: Lids up lightsaber
Enemy with armor: surprised pikachu face
Leather armor in medieval times? No.
Layered linens as gamblesons, aketons, etc, had thin leather as outer layer only in very extremely rare cases, this mostly for use in public events by nobility, to be fashionable and avoid a stab at the same time, still the leather was not the protective part.
Brigantine had sometimes leather as outer layer, some few cases again, and here the leather use was to keep the metal plates together, this because of rivets gnawing at cloth usually (leather strings were sometimes used too to keep the plates together but were a less reliable solution).
Leather was not to protect, the protection is the iron/steel or linen part.
Again, leather once cut or pierced, you could not repair it, plus it didn't let you cool down the body at all, they used thick fabric when possible instead, more breathable and once sewn it's like new. Plus a dry leather creak and break very easily, it dries very fast, you need additional maintenance to keep it proper, more the leather, more the time wasted on it, already the armors by default required time to be maintained properly, more time on it was not desired, not on campaigns or battles.
Even vikings had chainmails and full iron helmets, the leather components were garments.
Before medieval times, there were some cases of leather chest armor on roman soldiers for example but, even in this case most were bronze then iron.
Wow, I had to read this far down to find someone else who knows leather is bullshit?
Umm.. of course slashing kills
THAT'S HOW SWORDS WORK
SPILLS UR BOWELS, CAUSES SHOCK, OPENS CHEST CAVITY
Just wear 12 layerd cloth and slashing is impossible
This is how a serious movie can easily turn into a comedy
So the Mongolians used magic to slice in Europeans armor
I love how in Shadow of Mordor you actually need to do an execute move to finish off enemies
When enemies stop their overhead attack with both hands up so the hero can slash their torso without accidentaly getting hit
That would be a good combat strategy if you are up against a moron, who's slashing at your armored torso like a complete dumbass. Then once he's done swinging the weapon and knocking himself off-balance in the process, you can bring your weapon down right on his (numb)skull!
Maybe in the future when we have lazer guns they will have movies were the heroes shoot through the goons kevlar with their 9mm
Lmao...😂