I've met a couple of people who started practicing swordfighting a few years before I was born. It's not exactly an even fight to go against them. I wouldn't even bet on them being slower as long as they exercise regularly.
Eh... you would have _some_ career soldiers like that but also plenty of nobles (of any age) who are there because they're obliged to and maybe trained a bit in their life but have never been in a real fight before.
Sir Edmund Hampton fighting at Tewkesbury would be like a guy who was old enough to have fought at the Battle of Somme in WW1 actually fighting in the Tet Offensive in Vietnam
Fascinating! Most people don't realise that "life expectancy" is an average that includes the very high infant mortality of the times. Great sword collection, btw.
I think another part of it is the fact that it was really important that you didn't predecease your heir... Particularly for the nobility, but even among commoners. Regardless of where you sat on the social hierarchy, If you died, your son could take care of your widow and the rest of the family. Deliberately putting your family's future in danger would have had some strong social resistance. Especially if you had both the head of the family and the heir in danger, in the same battle. Heck we are seeing it in Ukraine right now where they only just expanded the age of the draft down to 25. Gen X'ers dominate the front line not because Ukraine doesn't have young men who they could get into uniform, but rather because they see twenty year olds as the future of the country and don't want to risk losing them. I do wonder however if the War of the Roses might be a bit of an outlier in that regard, at least among the nobility. After all there would typically be expectations around quarter and ransom that would have made warfare lower risk for people with places named after them... Such protections were rather pointedly absent during the War of the Roses though so warfare became seriously dangerous for the folks featured in Matt's book there.
@@Specter_1125 I mean it makes sense, odds were you were a farmer living off local land, every so often the local lord rounds up your army, maybe gets you and your mates drunk for a few months while you sometimes muster and stand around and look tough so better terms can be negotiated. If a fight starts? Potentially a good thing too. Get plunder, maybe your neighbor takes a pike to the throat, so now you're in a good position to get more land when you return.
9:23 this is why “average age” is so deceptive. If you have one person who lives to be 100 and one who dies at birth, the average age is 50. And that gives the impression that people live to 50. Infancy mortality rates are a very important factor.
Even as late as the early 20th century, half of all people born never made it out of early childhood. Most of the increase in average life expectancy has been a reduction of infant and early childhood mortality, and most of that comes from access to clean water and good sewage systems. Those aren't the only factors but they're the most important ones.
@@Zigmeister67 the sample size can be as large as you want. My point was infant mortality rates drastically decrease “life expectancy” even though if you survive infancy and childhood you’re pretty much set for a long life.
This is really interesting stuff. To add to the fun historical info: Harold Hadrada when he died at Stanford Bridge: 51 William The Conqueror at Hastings: 38 Harold Godwinson: 44 King Richard the Lionheart at Arsuf: just turned 34 Saladin at Arsuf: 54
Now what about their first battles? Harald Hardrada at the battle of Stiklestad: 15 William the Conqueror: At the battle of Val-es-Dunes he would have been about 18 or 19. Harold Godwinson: I'm not sure. Richard the Lionheart: I'm not sure exactly, but he was involved in the rebellion by his brothers against their father, when he would have been about 17. Saladin: At the battle of al-Babein he would have been about 29-30 though I'm not sure if it was his first battle. William Marshall: About 19 or 20 when he was knighted during his first campaign.
@@Blokewood3 No doubt about it, the goal was to start young and healthy and have as long a career as you possibly could. Build up that battle XP. Today we still value the young part but not the wise old warhorse part!
"Too old to reenact." Nobody told Wlliam Marshall he was too old for fighting back in the day. No one should do that to people now, who want to have fun.
He fought near enough till he died .Amazing man .👍 Good comment .love seeing the armour and stuff , people living their dream . Fair play too them . I live just down the road , so i can see it when i want .
realistically, the age of the re-enacter shouldn't matter as far a matching their "character". it's a bunch of people doing this as recreation, it's not a production with a casting call looking for matching ages.
Roman legions had older soldiers. We have a tombstone of a centurion that records he served in the legions into his 80s. In Republican times, older soldiers were formed into units known as Triarii and were placed in the rear rank.
I actually wonder how old Matt is. I assume he is somewhat around that age, but I just realized I actually don't know if he's ever said how old he is. Can you offer any context on this, Mr. Easton! :) Edit: Ignore me, Matt himself confirms he is 47 in this very video. Good on your Mr. Easton!
Don't mind so much as you pick up or pole arm & carry out drills. Do you really think a commander is all that picky most of the time? The most valued legions of the Romans for perspective had already seen near 20 years of service. Roman citizens under age 45 were considered eligible for the legions initially though this age dropped or raised depending on the time period. Flavius Vegetius Renatus in Dei re militari suggest the optimal age of recruitment was early to mid 20's though what you had to choose from was another matter. early 50's legionaries were not uncommon though not common. If you served from youth you would be the age of an Experienced legionary. Most knightly orders followed a similar method of organisation though their was no universal. 60+ is really were a male begins to have their muscle mass & reflex's diminish but as a trainers, sentries or select Auxiliary roles the elderly can have their uses. The Youth may have might & energy but they are often difficult to dripline as an organized force. I was instructed since infancy by my elders in matter of polemology=warfare studies so even at 28 I am not so unruly. Depending on your background & physical condition I see no reason to not utilize you as a soldier. Pleasant temperament is far more desirable then raw power in a youth that is trying to prove them selves or jump every bit of crumpet. If you can march 21.7 miles or 22 Milites at a decent pace in 5 hours you are of use. If you can do 10 miles per day with supplies then welcome to the Auxiliaries. If you can drive a motor & pass a basic fitness test then welcome to the Logistic Corps. Dull job but very crucial to any functioning force!
that just makes it scarier honestly, I've fenced people sub 25 and they dont scarw me nearly as much as ~35 years old. Experienced folks into their 40 or 50 are just unbeatable lol
It’s interesting how that works In unarmed martial arts (boxing, BJJ, mma etc) the best fighters are 25-35 (on average) The best balance of athleticism with experience. Physical decline moving towards your 40s begins to counteract any gains in experience. I suppose though with armed combat bc of the force multipliers used experience adds more to formula.
@@thefatefulforce8887 agility, reaction, speed helps with melee fighting, bur nothing beats skill in my experience. Ive faced large stomach 45 year old that had technique and experience to parry attack or feint from any angle and do preciese riposte into 1cm opening without dropping a sweat, and you they weren't even fast or strong. There is nothing your strength can do if you hit with weak of your blade onto their strong of a blade, its just a lever, and then reacting is always slower than acting. It's just scary facing people like that, you just know you're doomed. Unless they slip on grass or something 🤣 Whats funny is that this guy who came in, casually beat everyone, including my instructor, who has quite a few gold medals on countrt level tournaments, tells me about 45kg girl he met with a rapier who had technique so great, he couldnt beat her, saying "she was so thin and small, she hid behind her rapier so well you couldnt see her", probably meaning there we no openings. And in my experience too, the more you learn and fence, the less scary muscle, speed and hot blood aggresiveness scares me, with time it all comes down to technique with melee weapons.
Middle age people can be separated into two categories Those who aren't good at fighting and those that are DEFINITELY good at fighting! Not everyone in their 50s is as physical as Joseph Tito of Yugoslavia
@@thefatefulforce8887 It's also not just one-on-one armed combat: the knights were not just individual fighters, but commanders with many men under their command. That's even more of a force multiplier that increases the value of experience relative to athleticism.
@@thefatefulforce8887 A lot of sporting rules manufacture this result. Weight cuts for example massively favor younger bodies. Fights being scheduled months in advance so younger athletes can glean more advantage from fight camps. Glove weights in boxing. If you took two fighters, one 30 and the other 45, and had them fight without a fight camp and without a weight cut and without a ref, I wager the results would be different and more representative of war.
When my dad was 64, he and I were lifting something when I tripped, and fell face forward headed towards various sharp objects. He whipped his arm forward to keep my face from being stabbed . . . and knocked me out cold with his forearm onto my forehead. I don't remember it, but from the bruise, it was like a hammer blow. I think he would have been fairly at home with the whole "In armor, beating down the (prospective) King's enemies" thing.
@@barnettmcgowan8978 He was one of them short guys. The kind that gets told they are too short to join the Rugby team, so they CHANGE SCHOOLS so they can join THAT Rugby team, become Captain in just two years playing, and take the Inter-School trophy off the first school that had held it uncontested for 21 years. Then when he went to Uni, they tried the "Too Short" thing again, and he said "Am I ?" and snatched the Captain ( 14 stone ) up off the ground, and held him over his head, struggling and yelling and fighting to get free. My twin and I were light weights as children, and he DID NOT LIKE THAT so he used to over feed us, and used to set us "playing games" that were poorly disguised weight training. Which ended up with me at 20 being stronger than him, finally. He was 38 when I was born.
@@connorsterrett I remember the things before and after quite well, and doubt I was doing anything more than the normal complainants about how he would "allow all the tradesman pricks, who KNEW perfectly well we were supposed to close the scales at 1130 so we could pack up and be gone to 12, turn up and sell their scrap for Saturday night beer money, AT 12 o'clock" and then "Oh, now we have the gate shut, I want to take some of that stainless sheet home with us, I am going to do something with it tomorrow, come give me a lift" and the dozen other ways he would piss me off at the end of the week. He didn't make a habit of punching me for muttering sedition, which would have been too much work because I think I spent half my life complaining at him. :). His reacting was always a comment like "If you don't like it, you are welcome to fuck right off" or "Too bad, this comes under the Golden Rule, I got all the gold, I make all the rules".
It occurs to me that a lot of these knights were the oldest members of their families, and so skewed older. That doesn’t negate the original point, that mature and older men could fight.
The younger men and boys in their teens likely served as squires and assistants to the knights and men at arms rather than fight in the front lines. And many of the younger men were likely to be persons of lesser importance and so did not get their names recorded in history. An examination of the bodies from the bodies from the battle give a more representative sample of ages
That was my reaction. The book was about banners. So was it listing heads of households? If so, under the banner of a knight of 50 years could be several sons and nephews in their early twenties and a younger brother in his forties. The head of household might not even have fought at all. Without the book, and an assessment of its research, I am speculating.
Yes. Essentially listing the head of the household. Brothers, sons etc would also have been present (if alive!) Commoners also starting young i.e. once you were big enough to pick up a weapon.
There's also the fact they were nobles. Nobles were often taken prisoner and ransomed back. So lived to fight another day. Where as a commoner would just get killed. Which would further skew the ages
For the Archers: It would be really hard to master a warbow as a teenager. That kind of upper body strengh is hard to build up for someone who is not a professional.
If you shovel shit, dig trenches and haul logs all your childhood followed by training on the bow every week you are strong enough to draw bows once you go through puperty.
@@braddbradd5671yes. When I was 15 or 16 I could handle a bow that would put an arrow through a cheap pot. I admit that was at only at 3 or 4 metres, but I was also far from the strongest lad around and it wasn't the strongest bow I could possibly pull. Age and strength probably adds more to range than to deadliness, peaking in early 30s. I *guess* there were few war archers above 60.
Great video Matt! Henry "Hotspur" Percy's military career is nuts. This is just a snapshot of key dates, not counting the almost constant cross-border strife he was involved in. Born 1364. First campaign experience in France aged eight. Siege of Berwick 1378, captain of troops, aged 14. Scottish campaign with Richard II 1385, aged 21. French campaigns in Calais and Brest, 1386-7, aged 22/23. Battle of Otterburn, 1388, commander of English Forces, aged 24. Irish expedition 1395, aged 31. French expedition to Calais and Aquitaine, 1395-6, aged 32. Campaigns in Wales and Scotland, 1399-1402, aged 36-38. Battle of Homildon Hill, 1402, commander, aged 38. Battle of Shrewsbury, 1403, killed aged 39.
@@Blokewood3 He was probably in the pack train or a runner/page. Considering both were sometimes targeted by the enemy troops, he likely saw some fighting there.
I’m 73 and disabled by multiple autoimmune and neurological disorders. Before all that came along I studied martial arts. I’m certain that if a person came into my home with ill will I could take that person. The effort would put me in the hospital, but she/he’d would be worse off. My father, who was a TBM pilot in WWII, was trained by one of the few judo masters in the US at that time. He was physically dangerous well into his 60s, even with the decline that comes with age. When I became old enough to date, he taught me how to fight, including how to kill someone with a rat tail comb and disable them with a regular one, lol. His lessons began with “don’t tell your mother!”
You don't need to carry a knife as the rats tail comb is lethal. Lethal 👍👍 I too have a neuro auto immune disease (ms) it takes the body but not the memories of being physically fit. Keep the faith 🤗
@@Fallenangel_85 I think the majority of burglars are unfit lowlife junkies, I mean the type that rob homes of ordinary working people ,taking TV's and game consoles, selling to pawnbrokers or similar, not a great value but enough to get more drugs. People who look after themselves, who work out , train are more likely to be employed and not want to risk getting a criminal record , fit body fit mind , compared to a junkie mindset who just wants a few bucks to buy drugs. I know I'm generalizing, but whenever i read the local newspaper the criminal court section , 'tv' burglars always have previous for drugs . They are lowlifes, going for easy targets, I'm not saying they wont do any physical harm, I guess they'd do use anything to get away from anyone who tried grabbing them. In England our laws are sh## regarding people protecting their homes, a few years ago a farmer who had been robbed before and been told by the police its unlikely the burglars will be found and if they are they only get community work or probation, so after coming home from work to see hed been burgled again he slept with his Shotgun by his side and one night he heard people opening draws downstairs he ended up shooting killing one and blowing the leg off the other, the police arrested and charged the farmer with murder he went to jail and the burglar who lost his leg sued him and he got 200k ( maybe more) in compensation. They were typical scummy junkies. If it had been in the USA the farmer would've been in his rights And the burglar who lost his leg would've been jailed. That's how it should be, as a brit I envy the US law . I know that's an extreme example, but basically British law says can only use 'reasonable' force in situations like that, were not allowed to club people around the head who rob our homes . We have to ask them politely to stay where they are until the police arrived, its bollox its wrong, 1000s of people protested and signed petitions asking for the farmer to be released, bc he did nothing wrong. But government did sod all.,
Yes, due to their role as figureheads and necessity to be present, it seems that you find more of the young nobles present the closer you get to the top magnates and royalty.
@@scholagladiatoria Same day as you loaded this video, there were running battles and skirmishes alongside Southend Beach. Lots of swords being brandished. The persons appear to have been in their late teens and early 20s. Every participant appeared to be a Moor or a Saracen, so I'm uncertain of how this would apply to medieval England..
@Matt: I check out your channel on a regular basis - and often there is another interesting video on a subject hardly anybody else thought of waiting for me. Like this one. Thank you! I certainly will enjoy watching it! 👍🙂
Your video popped up on my feed Matt and the title caught my attention as I’m now 60 and a General history lover. Really enjoyed it thanks. There is an ongoing shift in history circles over the last couple of decades on the subject of how long did people live. In the 70s when I was at school we were taught that most people in the distant past didn’t live that long. But this has changed with modern research and archeological techniques allowing us to more accurately work out individuals ages at death, mortality rates etc.
They were landed gentry, so they had to be old enough to have full inheritance to be proper claimant of these titles. Also they had to serve their lord/kings call regardless of age.
Sure but there's no actual old enough for that. You just needed the previous claimant to die. How often did that happen at a young age? Probably largely depends on which period and place. But it probably wasn't extremely rare at any point.
Correction about the battle of Visby: The townspeople (of Visby) weren't really involved in the battle. The losing side consisted mostly of people from the *countryside* with everything from (presumably) freeholders and yeomen up to countryside gentry and nobility.
Same here. Also wanted to add the possibly interesting fact that the main fighting force of the Swedish king had been routed by the Danish... due to better knowledge of the terrain 🙄
@Rasbiff I once read a bit about the remains of the fighters that were unearthed at Visby. Quite a few still had on their armor. Much of which was seemingly of old vintage compared to the armor worn by most of the best Western combat forces at the time. The wounds they suffered were atrocious too. With one skeleton being found with both legs hacked off at the thigh. Seemingly, with one hard blow from a large bladed two-handed sword or axe. Others had arms, feet, or legs missing. Or had skulls that were crushed or chopped in two with, again, one hard blow. And if my memory serves of what I read. Many suffered injuries to their backs or right sides of their bodies. Cuts to legs in general were pretty common also. Areas that a shield wouldn't cover all that well if someone were retreating.
Maybe someone has more information on this, but I once read that if a fighting man made it to 40 years old, his chances of living to 60 were pretty good. This kind of makes sense because in hand-to-hand combat, experience is perhaps more valuable than any other factor. When someone launches a blow at you, you've seen that particular technique before and you know how to counter it. I don't remember where I read it, so maybe it's not even true, but it's an interesting observation.
Thank you! Well researched, your usual bright, cheerful delivery, and very, very interesting! Your program truly lives up to its name. Pray continue, sir!
The fact that several of these guys lived to around 70 after years of countless concussions and on top of not having modern medical technology and nutrition is pretty amazing.
The "average life expectancy" in X time period is one of the most misunderstood statistics out there. Mainly because people don't understand how high the infant mortality rate was in that period. You could have an average life expectancy of 40 years old but, if you survived to 2 years old, the average would jump up to 60.
It was skewed, but 70's probably too much for a regular person to aspire to. Like... even today, on 35 countries, the life expectancy at 15 index (to account for infant mortality) is lower than that.
@@kenneth9874a old wasp will sting the f out of your hand if you touch it. Same for the old, strong and skilled. They may not be able to hike, and carry lots of stuff… but they’ll stab ya 😂
Thanks, Matt - that was both enlightening and entertaining! I'm in awe of the physical prowess of those 'oldies', i.e. over 45, fighting in the front line wearing armour!
The very wide range of of military leaders throughout history always threw me off bc there were teenagers and geriatrics beheading people in most parts of the world for most of history
As long as you've never stopped training and don't get a major injury, age 35-45 is peak time for a fighter. You have the best combination of experience and physical capacity.
@@Art-is-craft Debatable. Nowadays most special operations soldiers in Western professional armies are between 25-35, some up to early 40s (as they are picked among those who have some experience). Incidentally is about the same age as top athletes. Unless someone is gifted, it takes some years to train and get proficient in one’s field. Obviously in war time it changes, and in places like Ukraine the average soldier age is between 37-42.
@@crimsonerrant Most entrants to elite military is early twenties and they tend to have a period of service before training. The rigours of elite military are so intense that even Olympic athletes will be physically taxed. The older a body becomes the more damage it struggles to deal with. There is a reason why USMC has 28 as an age limit. There are exceptional cases though.
@@Art-is-craft I agree. But you are talking about the entry age, not the peak age. The peak is usually reached later (except in the case of really gifted people). Until 25 muscles are still being developed. Peak is usually reached in the 30s when development meets experience. Some people can keep really fit in their 40s and continue in the military service up to their 50s (and in rare occasions 60s).
@@crimsonerrant The hardest part of elite military training from physical point of view is the entry tests. While there is continued training throughout service it is nowhere near the entry training courses. Peak physicality is 16 to 25. Starting training after that period in such elite forces is extreme on the body. It is not to say a 32 year old cannot do it but the odds are stacked against that person.
Medieval Dead did an episode on the Battle of Towton, where they found the remains of some of the participants. If i remember correctly, there was a wide range of ages😊
I would expect that in battles the nobility would skew older than commoners, because the nobility would have trained from a young age, would have better armour, and would be worth ransoming. Those 3 factors would combine to make the nobility much more likely to survive any battles they might fight in without serious injury. The more likely they are to survive battles relatively unscathed, the more likely you are to see them on the battlefield much later in life. Commoners would generally be more poorly trained, would have less protective armour, and wouldn't be worth ransoming so enemies wouldn't try to capture them alive. That would make it much more likely for a commoner to be killed or suffer a serious injury (keeping in mind that any wound that gets infected can be life-threatening) that would prevent them from fighting in future battles, so commoners on the battlefield would likely skew at least somewhat younger. Mind you, when it comes to peasant levies in particular, I wonder if the demographics might be artificially skewed by the lord raising them to ensure that there are still enough relatively young and strong men working the fields. I suppose that might depend on things like the exact time of year, the reason for raising a levy, etc.
As someone who was watching the Tewkesbury reenactment a few weeks ago I just want to say that the battle reenactment itself was fantastic and THAT noise at the point the armoured centres smashed into each other got an audible gasp from the crowd around me 😆
In summary, for my own benefit later regarding the Battle of Tewkesbury and ages of knightly combatants: It wasn't impossible, though somewhat uncommon, for a knight to be of late teens/early 20s. The average age of the knightly class seemed to hover somewhere around late 20s-40s, with a smattering of late 40s-early 50s as well. It was somewhat uncommon, though not impossible, for middle age or even nearing modern retirement ages of 50s, 60s, and even 70s to show up in full harness on the front lines.
The Order of the Hospital fielded many brothers aged 50+ at the Great Siege. Fra Jean de Valette was 70 and supposedly engaged in combat. The one English brother present, Fra Oliver Starkey was 42.
Given that smoking was non-existent and physical activity was common among all segments of the population, it is not surprising that people remained reasonably physically active right up to the time of their death. In pre-industrial times, death was probably not due to old age per se, but mainly due to infectious diseases, cancer, accidents or violence.
Glad I tuned in. I would have said twenties and thirties, believing people dropped like flies very early in life from diseases, if not battles. Thank you for updating my info and understanding of those times. 👍
It was skewed, but 70's probably too much for a regular person to aspire to. Like... even today, on 35 countries, the life expectancy at 15 index (to account for infant mortality) is lower than that.
75 ... even the bible thinks 70-80 is normal The only difference in the modern day is you are likely to survive until your first birthday, you are not likely to be killed before 40 in war, industry, or childbirth - so you will most likely survive until 75 ... And so are more likely to survive until 100+ which more are doing ... . but the maximum lifespan has not changed
Yes, long life was less secure, you could die from an infected hang nail- but humans didn’t die of old age significantly younger. Of course, you probably had a better chance of reaching 70 if you managed to avoid things like the Battle of Tewksbury!
The book is only of people with titles. There were probably quite a few younger people who had not yet inherited the title and so just listed as men at arms.
Any idea how often medieval soldiers suffered serious wounds and continued to fight battles after recovering? I kind of imagine that accumulated wounds would be more significant than aging when it comes to older soldiers in combat
It's a little past medieval, but Robert III de La Marck claimed he received over forty wounds & was left among the dead at Novara 1513. His 45-year-old father led a few other men-at-arms into the infantry melee to save him. Robert III continued military service after he recovered, fighting at Marignano 1515 & Pavia 1525. He died in 1537 at age 46. His father died a year before at age 68. It's possible the wounds Robert III received contributed to his relatively early death (from illness). His father also was seriously wounded at Novara 1513.
Thats a good question. It is definitly not unheard of for soldiers at least in the higher ranks (nobility and professional men at arms) to survive serious wounds. The best example would be the arrow wound to the face of Henry V at Shrewsbury. Also during excavations of mass graves at Towton they found skeletons with recovered battlewounds, one skull had a deep blade cut in the lower jaw and the bone showed signs of healing. I think it came really down to your status/wealth and therefor the acces to armour protection and medical attention.
If I remember my biology correctly (am a layman at bio, so take this with a grain of salt), men's natural muscle growth ends somewhere in the early or mid 20's, so it makes sense to me for retainers and aristocrats to normally start their front-line military service in their 20's. No point sending a 16 year old to die on the front lines if the lord he serves can afford to have him keep training until he finishes growing, plus if he's the firstborn son his lord probably want him to have a son of his own to continue the family lineage.
Well if you take Shakespeares version of events at Agincourt, which was only 50yrs earlier, the French attacked the baggage train, killing the all the squires causing great anger as being "against the rules of war". This suggests that as they were in the baggage train, they were regarded as non-combatants, as no-one in the baggage train would be expected to fight other than maybe protecting the wagons and the animals that drew them.
I imagine reenactors are fairly representatives of nobles and other wealthy soldiers but I would think the mass of poorer and levied soldiers were generally younger.
Yeah, but you're on the upper end there. If you consider a normal distribution of strength, how much people would be expected to fire at a given battle, and how modern people struggle to pull that, I doubt any more than single percentages of people drew 150lbs.
Common people did manual labour as children at that time. If you were not too poorly off and extremely malnourished you'd be strong enough as soon as you hit puperty. So easily in your mid teens.
@@guseks8413 Also, archers were highly-skilled professional soldiers, so they weren't exactly from the commoner class. It's quite likely that they would have started training with bows as children.
Were the Tewkesbury knights typically the head of their household? That would reduce the chances of younger people appearing, since their fathers may stil be alive (and be the ones taking part).
I could tell you a lot about the military history of the Grays / Greys / Greyes. They are my ancestors! They were always very high status from the battle of Hastings (Ansetil de Greye) all the way into the 16th Century. During Domesday the family broke off between the South and the North where the surname split between 'Gray' in the north, and 'Grey' in the south. The northern Grays saw their prime during the Scottish war of Independence being a close friend of the King Edwards. Their downfall was attempting to assassinate King Henry V due to a serious falling out.
I suspect that your source is skewing the ages. Your 'population' are those who have banners. They are established leaders, which takes both time and experience. I suspect that they had younger brothers, cousins and sons who served as esquires or men-at-arms etc, having not yet acquired their own banner.
I would imagine that just like in an army today, you have the officer and career soldiers (knights and retainers) who keep doing this until they're of retirement age, and you have the levies that are drafted into military service from the younger generations. The young ones are there to fight, and the old ones are there to make sure all the fighting men are on the same battlefield on the same day (and put them in formation, interpret the flag signals, etc. etc.)
You would have wanted experienced soldiers to act as officers. Even if they weren't as athletic as they might once have been, the extra experience of older soldiers would have been valuable. The hierarchies inherent in feudal society meant that commanders were generally expected to be 'high born' so it's not really surprising that older nobles would have been in demand on the battlefield. It would have been a self-selecting group of men who were still generally in good health and the average age of a common soldier or man at arms may have been different. As a tangent, there's a bit of an over-correction going on regarding the topic of longevity in popular history. Recently I've seen quite a lot of popular historians stressing the impact of infant mortality on average historical life spans, implying that the reason life expectancy was so low throughout most of history was the number of children who died in infancy, and that people who lived to adulthood otherwise had life expectancies comparable to our own. Whilst it's true that infant mortality had a disproportionate impact on life expectancy, it was still much lower for most of history, even in those who lived to adulthood. the average age at death of a Norman or Plantagenet king of England (a data set that excludes any infants) was 48. Even if you remove all of the violent and suspicious deaths, it only goes up to 55.4. Not a single one reached 70. If you look at Roman Emperors, from the Julio-Claudian to the Nerva-Antonine Dynasties (again, no babies) it's 54.4 or 62.4 with all the violent and suspicious deaths removed. If you compare these numbers to the ages at death of 20th century British Prime Ministers the difference is stark. The average age at death (of those that have died so far) was 80.7. Even if you remove Margaret Thatcher (on the basis that women typically live longer anyway), then it's still 80.4. Even without the disproportionate impact of infant mortality, historical life expectancy was dramatically shorter than it has been in modern times. For much of history there were plenty of people who lived to old age, but they would have considered themselves lucky to have done so, as most of their peers didn't.
The problem with using Romans as an example of life expectancy was that they were far beyond medieval lifestyle. They bathed regularly, ate rich diets, could if desired live in low density areas and clearly had an understanding of infectious disease.
@@Art-is-craftMedieval people bathed regularly,ate nourishing. meals understood hygiene also...Ignorant people(Even some Historians,,) love to perpetuate this fallacy.They washed their hands preceding and succeding meals....How many people do that today. !???
@@annabelladebonnay8320 Most people who lived in the dark ages as in Medieval lived in extremely poverty and very few had the luxury of Roman hygiene and life style.
With the additional caveats that those would be low-skill levied troops (e.g. pikemen) and squires caught in battle with enemies that didn't respect the rules of war, as they were with supply trains, not deployed on the field.
All people mentioned in the video were knights. It was rare for a knight to be younger than 21 since the training commonly took 14 years to finish (with a few exceptions)
You see this brought up a lot but I wouldn't want a 14 year old at my side in a battle even back then. There's a world of difference between a strong man at 25-35 than any teenager.
The life expectancy statistic based on fetal survival rate is such a poor instrument to use to gauge the age of people throughout history. It's the same as it is today; add and subtract some variables.
The Bible says "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; And if by reason of strength they be fourscore years" i.e. 70-80 ... most died before the age of 1, a lot died 20-40 in warfare, work, and childbirth but if you survived ... then you were expected to live to 75 ...
We also live in a *highly* blessed time with sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics and a bunch of medical knowledge that would have been unheard of two centuries ago. A good chunk of that modern life expectancy is through mass sickness/pandemics being once in a generation things as opposed to a regular occurrence. Once antibiotics stop functioning on an easy and massive level, you will see a year or two shaved off that modern number. COVID and the knock-on effects dented the US life expectancy numbers enough to throw it back to 1995 levels for a year.
People really do live significantly longer on average over the last century or two. It's not just infant mortality, though that's the major factor driving down historical life expectancy. But there were lots & lots of medieval elites who died relatively young (as adults). Getting sick & passing in one's forties (for instance) was much more common before modern medicine, including for the most powerful people in society.
Disease, malnutrition, weather and hard living meant the vast majority did not live beyond 35. An outlier was living from 50 to 80. The idea that claiming modern medicine makes no difference is absurd.
@@Art-is-craft That's only true if count infant mortality. According to an article by Marianne Jonker, the life expectancy at 25 of tenants in medieval English was 25.7. So one of these folks who made it to 25 could expect to live to a touch past 50. That's still young to die by modern standards, of course. Life expectancy at 25 is around 50-55 in the USA as of 2021, so public health & scientific medicine have made huge improvements.
This is a fascinating analysis! Any chance we'll get more of this for other battles? Otherwise, I think I'll look up that source and see what else they've published.
I’m a history teacher. My students never believe me when I tell them that premodern people could live into their seventies. Then we talk about infant mortality, which was staggering. Once you made it to age ten, you had decent odds of living into old age. Especially as a man. Childbirth was considerably riskier for mothers back then than it is now.
@@RebeccaOreMy great great grandparents lost their first six children before the age of five. In 1864 they lost three children in the spring, summer and fall. My great grandfather was the seventh child and the first who lived to adulthood.
Weren’t baptismal dates,even for commoners, generally recorded in England and records kept at the parish level? The problem is not so much knowing when someone noted therein was born, but rather which commoners were at the battle at where they were born/baptized? Or so I’d think…
We're talking over 550 years ago - notwithstanding the physical survival of the ledgers over that length of time against fire, damp, mould and mice, including the upheavals of the Reformation - record keeping could vary from meticulous to non existent with all shades in between. Even with modern records I'm unable to positively identify one of my second great grandmothers.
Baptism records only became required 1538, by the brand new Church of England. I presume it was Henry 8th improving religious control of the population. Records before that are not so good.
@@Muritaipet It was also a trend of the time. French and German parish registers (i.e. records of baptisms, marriages and burials) were introduced at almost exactly the same time. You are right that for any time before that we have virtually no systematic records of who was born when etc.; what pre-16th c. records there are only mention age in passing (if at all) and are limited to those who firstly, did a lot of property transactions, and then kept them, all of which means that documentation is okay for the nobility and gentry but very incomplete or inexistent for most other people.
I was a street cop for 33 years in a major city, I’ve been in so many fights that I forgot 98% of them. But I was taking people into custody in my 50’s. I’m 6’1” and have been over 200 lbs since I was 21. The age you can fight up to matters on training and your overall health and attitude.
There were many knights who were 6ft or taller, but also many who were around average at the time, so around 5’6” to 5’8”. Armors significantly smaller than that were probably for training adolescents, or for them to use in parade.
People on average were shorter then. This was something brought home to me as a six foot woman touring English castles. Ducking through just about every doorway. EDIT: And Scottish...
Excellent video! The numbers do not really surprise me as a medievalist, but it's great to have that book as a single slice of time with good information (on the aristocracy, of course). I would have liked if you had just done a quick spreadsheet out of that book and given the age spread in a chart, as well as the median and mean.
William Marshall was like a super human, And if we didn't have so much evidence to support his existence and most of his adventures nobody would believe he was real . He was a rare thing, a true man of honour who was loyal and honest and did his duty , he wasn't bothered about money or gaining titles, he couldn't be brought, and as you say he was remarkable and remained a fearless warrior until he died in his early 70s . You must be really proud to be related and have his blood running through your veins. Without him England may have been ruled by the French king Louis the 8th and become part of the French empire Because of Marshall the magna Carta became law and not just a bunch of words that ended up in the bin. He well deserves to be known as "the greatest knight " ⚔
Hi, Matt! Great video as always. I wonder if you could talk about jousting type shields (ecranche, targe), but outside of the sports context. What are the advantages of using those, for example, on foot? Thank you very much.
I'd be interested to see all these ages as points on a graph to see if there is some manner of curve or trends and then compare it with other data to see if there might be some larger events (plagues, famine, other wars or campaigns) that might affect generational cohorts.
It might interesting to see all those ages in a graph. It could provide a visual idea of the age-range reality. A few long-held illusions shattered by this video.
I can also imagine that, given that feudalism relies on interfamilial and personal connections, there was a similar sort of situation you have with a lot of 'experience in the workplace' scenarios. It's not hard to imagine that you simply don't get to be a knight until you're a bit older and get the authority and build up the social network and familiarity to get the promotion to knighthood from the knight you serve as a squire. - Personal tutelage and apprenticeship is quite important in the medieval age, so age-based junior-senior dynamics would be rife even in the martial classes. I love insight like that. I wonder if squires were allowed to fight in the retinues of their master for experience and perhaps sought to prove themselves.
Made me realize how scary a grey haired man-at-arms would be to face. Maybe slower, but massive amounts of experience.
The older I get, the less I believe that 😂 It's not even about speed, it's about stamina
There are some pro hockey players in the NHL that played well into their 40's. Gordie Howe played his last game at 52.
I've met a couple of people who started practicing swordfighting a few years before I was born. It's not exactly an even fight to go against them. I wouldn't even bet on them being slower as long as they exercise regularly.
Eh... you would have _some_ career soldiers like that but also plenty of nobles (of any age) who are there because they're obliged to and maybe trained a bit in their life but have never been in a real fight before.
@@DrVictorVasconcelosAnd a stiff sword 😂
Sir Edmund Hampton fighting at Tewkesbury would be like a guy who was old enough to have fought at the Battle of Somme in WW1 actually fighting in the Tet Offensive in Vietnam
Fascinating! Most people don't realise that "life expectancy" is an average that includes the very high infant mortality of the times. Great sword collection, btw.
I'm not surprised the guys in the best armor money could buy survived battles to serve at older ages. Also ransoms.
Skeletal evidence from mass graves after battle shows that there were many common soldiers well past 40 years old.
@@Specter_1125 Well quite.
I think another part of it is the fact that it was really important that you didn't predecease your heir... Particularly for the nobility, but even among commoners. Regardless of where you sat on the social hierarchy, If you died, your son could take care of your widow and the rest of the family. Deliberately putting your family's future in danger would have had some strong social resistance. Especially if you had both the head of the family and the heir in danger, in the same battle.
Heck we are seeing it in Ukraine right now where they only just expanded the age of the draft down to 25. Gen X'ers dominate the front line not because Ukraine doesn't have young men who they could get into uniform, but rather because they see twenty year olds as the future of the country and don't want to risk losing them.
I do wonder however if the War of the Roses might be a bit of an outlier in that regard, at least among the nobility. After all there would typically be expectations around quarter and ransom that would have made warfare lower risk for people with places named after them... Such protections were rather pointedly absent during the War of the Roses though so warfare became seriously dangerous for the folks featured in Matt's book there.
@@imperialus1why were said protections les common during that war?
@@Specter_1125 I mean it makes sense, odds were you were a farmer living off local land, every so often the local lord rounds up your army, maybe gets you and your mates drunk for a few months while you sometimes muster and stand around and look tough so better terms can be negotiated. If a fight starts? Potentially a good thing too. Get plunder, maybe your neighbor takes a pike to the throat, so now you're in a good position to get more land when you return.
9:23 this is why “average age” is so deceptive. If you have one person who lives to be 100 and one who dies at birth, the average age is 50. And that gives the impression that people live to 50.
Infancy mortality rates are a very important factor.
Even as late as the early 20th century, half of all people born never made it out of early childhood. Most of the increase in average life expectancy has been a reduction of infant and early childhood mortality, and most of that comes from access to clean water and good sewage systems. Those aren't the only factors but they're the most important ones.
Very correct there's even cave men that have been found into there early 70s
That's why you need to use a fairly large sample size.
@@Zigmeister67 the sample size can be as large as you want. My point was infant mortality rates drastically decrease “life expectancy” even though if you survive infancy and childhood you’re pretty much set for a long life.
That's why there is why mean medium and mode are used to calculate the average properly according to the appropriate needs.
"I was once an adventurer like you - until I took an arrow to the face." - Henry V ( who was about 16 when he got wounded at Shrewsbury in 1403)
I hear the draugr form of Harold Godwinson can be found in some tomb saying the same thing
He lived!!
This is really interesting stuff. To add to the fun historical info:
Harold Hadrada when he died at Stanford Bridge: 51
William The Conqueror at Hastings: 38
Harold Godwinson: 44
King Richard the Lionheart at Arsuf: just turned 34
Saladin at Arsuf: 54
William Marshall at the battle of Lincoln: 70.
Now what about their first battles?
Harald Hardrada at the battle of Stiklestad: 15
William the Conqueror: At the battle of Val-es-Dunes he would have been about 18 or 19.
Harold Godwinson: I'm not sure.
Richard the Lionheart: I'm not sure exactly, but he was involved in the rebellion by his brothers against their father, when he would have been about 17.
Saladin: At the battle of al-Babein he would have been about 29-30 though I'm not sure if it was his first battle.
William Marshall: About 19 or 20 when he was knighted during his first campaign.
@@Blokewood3 No doubt about it, the goal was to start young and healthy and have as long a career as you possibly could. Build up that battle XP. Today we still value the young part but not the wise old warhorse part!
"Too old to reenact."
Nobody told Wlliam Marshall he was too old for fighting back in the day.
No one should do that to people now, who want to have fun.
He fought near enough till he died .Amazing man .👍
Good comment .love seeing the armour and stuff , people living their dream . Fair play too them .
I live just down the road , so i can see it when i want .
how about politicians ?
@@cadileigh9948 Did you just compare modern politicians to England's greatest knight?
realistically, the age of the re-enacter shouldn't matter as far a matching their "character". it's a bunch of people doing this as recreation, it's not a production with a casting call looking for matching ages.
Roman legions had older soldiers. We have a tombstone of a centurion that records he served in the legions into his 80s. In Republican times, older soldiers were formed into units known as Triarii and were placed in the rear rank.
"42...certainly not young" I feel attacked :)
Never mind, at 42 you seem fairly young to me
I actually wonder how old Matt is. I assume he is somewhat around that age, but I just realized I actually don't know if he's ever said how old he is. Can you offer any context on this, Mr. Easton! :)
Edit: Ignore me, Matt himself confirms he is 47 in this very video. Good on your Mr. Easton!
Don't mind so much as you pick up or pole arm & carry out drills.
Do you really think a commander is all that picky most of the time?
The most valued legions of the Romans for perspective had already seen near 20 years of service.
Roman citizens under age 45 were considered eligible for the legions initially though this age dropped or raised depending on the time period.
Flavius Vegetius Renatus in Dei re militari suggest the optimal age of recruitment was early to mid 20's though what you had to choose from was another matter.
early 50's legionaries were not uncommon though not common.
If you served from youth you would be the age of an Experienced legionary.
Most knightly orders followed a similar method of organisation though their was no universal.
60+ is really were a male begins to have their muscle mass & reflex's diminish but as a trainers, sentries or select Auxiliary roles the elderly can have their uses.
The Youth may have might & energy but they are often difficult to dripline as an organized force.
I was instructed since infancy by my elders in matter of polemology=warfare studies so even at 28 I am not so unruly.
Depending on your background & physical condition I see no reason to not utilize you as a soldier.
Pleasant temperament is far more desirable then raw power in a youth that is trying to prove them selves or jump every bit of crumpet.
If you can march 21.7 miles or 22 Milites at a decent pace in 5 hours you are of use.
If you can do 10 miles per day with supplies then welcome to the Auxiliaries.
If you can drive a motor & pass a basic fitness test then welcome to the Logistic Corps.
Dull job but very crucial to any functioning force!
Because you don't know what coming lol
Enjoy being young
I thought I was younger than Matt, now I feel aggrieved!
that just makes it scarier honestly, I've fenced people sub 25 and they dont scarw me nearly as much as ~35 years old. Experienced folks into their 40 or 50 are just unbeatable lol
It’s interesting how that works
In unarmed martial arts (boxing, BJJ, mma etc) the best fighters are 25-35 (on average)
The best balance of athleticism with experience.
Physical decline moving towards your 40s begins to counteract any gains in experience.
I suppose though with armed combat bc of the force multipliers used experience adds more to formula.
@@thefatefulforce8887 agility, reaction, speed helps with melee fighting, bur nothing beats skill in my experience. Ive faced large stomach 45 year old that had technique and experience to parry attack or feint from any angle and do preciese riposte into 1cm opening without dropping a sweat, and you they weren't even fast or strong. There is nothing your strength can do if you hit with weak of your blade onto their strong of a blade, its just a lever, and then reacting is always slower than acting. It's just scary facing people like that, you just know you're doomed. Unless they slip on grass or something 🤣
Whats funny is that this guy who came in, casually beat everyone, including my instructor, who has quite a few gold medals on countrt level tournaments, tells me about 45kg girl he met with a rapier who had technique so great, he couldnt beat her, saying "she was so thin and small, she hid behind her rapier so well you couldnt see her", probably meaning there we no openings.
And in my experience too, the more you learn and fence, the less scary muscle, speed and hot blood aggresiveness scares me, with time it all comes down to technique with melee weapons.
Middle age people can be separated into two categories
Those who aren't good at fighting and those that are DEFINITELY good at fighting!
Not everyone in their 50s is as physical as Joseph Tito of Yugoslavia
@@thefatefulforce8887 It's also not just one-on-one armed combat: the knights were not just individual fighters, but commanders with many men under their command. That's even more of a force multiplier that increases the value of experience relative to athleticism.
@@thefatefulforce8887 A lot of sporting rules manufacture this result. Weight cuts for example massively favor younger bodies. Fights being scheduled months in advance so younger athletes can glean more advantage from fight camps. Glove weights in boxing. If you took two fighters, one 30 and the other 45, and had them fight without a fight camp and without a weight cut and without a ref, I wager the results would be different and more representative of war.
When my dad was 64, he and I were lifting something when I tripped, and fell face forward headed towards various sharp objects. He whipped his arm forward to keep my face from being stabbed . . . and knocked me out cold with his forearm onto my forehead. I don't remember it, but from the bruise, it was like a hammer blow.
I think he would have been fairly at home with the whole "In armor, beating down the (prospective) King's enemies" thing.
Your dad sounds awesome!
@@barnettmcgowan8978 He was one of them short guys.
The kind that gets told they are too short to join the Rugby team, so they CHANGE SCHOOLS so they can join THAT Rugby team, become Captain in just two years playing, and take the Inter-School trophy off the first school that had held it uncontested for 21 years.
Then when he went to Uni, they tried the "Too Short" thing again, and he said "Am I ?" and snatched the Captain ( 14 stone ) up off the ground, and held him over his head, struggling and yelling and fighting to get free.
My twin and I were light weights as children, and he DID NOT LIKE THAT so he used to over feed us, and used to set us "playing games" that were poorly disguised weight training. Which ended up with me at 20 being stronger than him, finally. He was 38 when I was born.
@@uncletiggermclaren7592 He sounds like a great role model.
Since you can't remember, are you sure you weren't mouthing off and your dad invented the story when you were out cold?
@@connorsterrett I remember the things before and after quite well, and doubt I was doing anything more than the normal complainants about how he would
"allow all the tradesman pricks, who KNEW perfectly well we were supposed to close the scales at 1130 so we could pack up and be gone to 12, turn up and sell their scrap for Saturday night beer money, AT 12 o'clock"
and then
"Oh, now we have the gate shut, I want to take some of that stainless sheet home with us, I am going to do something with it tomorrow, come give me a lift" and the dozen other ways he would piss me off at the end of the week.
He didn't make a habit of punching me for muttering sedition, which would have been too much work because I think I spent half my life complaining at him. :).
His reacting was always a comment like "If you don't like it, you are welcome to fuck right off" or
"Too bad, this comes under the Golden Rule, I got all the gold, I make all the rules".
It occurs to me that a lot of these knights were the oldest members of their families, and so skewed older. That doesn’t negate the original point, that mature and older men could fight.
The younger men and boys in their teens likely served as squires and assistants to the knights and men at arms rather than fight in the front lines. And many of the younger men were likely to be persons of lesser importance and so did not get their names recorded in history. An examination of the bodies from the bodies from the battle give a more representative sample of ages
That was my reaction. The book was about banners. So was it listing heads of households? If so, under the banner of a knight of 50 years could be several sons and nephews in their early twenties and a younger brother in his forties. The head of household might not even have fought at all. Without the book, and an assessment of its research, I am speculating.
Yep, I came to he comments to make this exact point, too.
Yes. Essentially listing the head of the household. Brothers, sons etc would also have been present (if alive!)
Commoners also starting young i.e. once you were big enough to pick up a weapon.
There's also the fact they were nobles. Nobles were often taken prisoner and ransomed back. So lived to fight another day. Where as a commoner would just get killed. Which would further skew the ages
For the Archers: It would be really hard to master a warbow as a teenager. That kind of upper body strengh is hard to build up for someone who is not a professional.
If you shovel shit, dig trenches and haul logs all your childhood followed by training on the bow every week you are strong enough to draw bows once you go through puperty.
If he was trained as a child a 19 year old can easily handle a warbow as he gets old hel increase the strength of bow either way he will Keeeeel!
Older teens play professional sports. I am sure they could develop the strength to pull a war bow. Younger teens might have trouble.
@@TwinMcQuerns Exactly
@@braddbradd5671yes. When I was 15 or 16 I could handle a bow that would put an arrow through a cheap pot. I admit that was at only at 3 or 4 metres, but I was also far from the strongest lad around and it wasn't the strongest bow I could possibly pull.
Age and strength probably adds more to range than to deadliness, peaking in early 30s. I *guess* there were few war archers above 60.
Great video Matt!
Henry "Hotspur" Percy's military career is nuts. This is just a snapshot of key dates, not counting the almost constant cross-border strife he was involved in.
Born 1364.
First campaign experience in France aged eight.
Siege of Berwick 1378, captain of troops, aged 14.
Scottish campaign with Richard II 1385, aged 21.
French campaigns in Calais and Brest, 1386-7, aged 22/23.
Battle of Otterburn, 1388, commander of English Forces, aged 24.
Irish expedition 1395, aged 31.
French expedition to Calais and Aquitaine, 1395-6, aged 32.
Campaigns in Wales and Scotland, 1399-1402, aged 36-38.
Battle of Homildon Hill, 1402, commander, aged 38.
Battle of Shrewsbury, 1403, killed aged 39.
Sounds like the spiritual ancestor of Adrian Carton de Wiart. :D
@@suntiger745 now there was one insanely hard bastard!
First campaign experience at age 8?? What the heck was he doing on the campaign?
@@Blokewood3 Taking the term "infantry" literally by the sound of it.
@@Blokewood3 He was probably in the pack train or a runner/page.
Considering both were sometimes targeted by the enemy troops, he likely saw some fighting there.
I’m 73 and disabled by multiple autoimmune and neurological disorders. Before all that came along I studied martial arts. I’m certain that if a person came into my home with ill will I could take that person. The effort would put me in the hospital, but she/he’d would be worse off. My father, who was a TBM pilot in WWII, was trained by one of the few judo masters in the US at that time. He was physically dangerous well into his 60s, even with the decline that comes with age. When I became old enough to date, he taught me how to fight, including how to kill someone with a rat tail comb and disable them with a regular one, lol. His lessons began with “don’t tell your mother!”
You don't need to carry a knife as the rats tail comb is lethal. Lethal 👍👍 I too have a neuro auto immune disease (ms) it takes the body but not the memories of being physically fit. Keep the faith 🤗
Don't expect a home invader to be an unarmed untrained nobody though and it will probably happen when you sleep.
Hey your old man sounds like a unique character. Much like my own. Goodluck and health to ya.
@@Fallenangel_85 I think the majority of burglars are unfit lowlife junkies, I mean the type that rob homes of ordinary working people ,taking TV's and game consoles, selling to pawnbrokers or similar, not a great value but enough to get more drugs.
People who look after themselves, who work out , train are more likely to be employed and not want to risk getting a criminal record , fit body fit mind , compared to a junkie mindset who just wants a few bucks to buy drugs.
I know I'm generalizing, but whenever i read the local newspaper the criminal court section , 'tv' burglars always have previous for drugs .
They are lowlifes, going for easy targets, I'm not saying they wont do any physical harm, I guess they'd do use anything to get away from anyone who tried grabbing them.
In England our laws are sh## regarding people protecting their homes, a few years ago a farmer who had been robbed before and been told by the police its unlikely the burglars will be found and if they are they only get community work or probation, so after coming home from work to see hed been burgled again he slept with his Shotgun by his side and one night he heard people opening draws downstairs he ended up shooting killing one and blowing the leg off the other, the police arrested and charged the farmer with murder he went to jail and the burglar who lost his leg sued him and he got 200k ( maybe more) in compensation.
They were typical scummy junkies.
If it had been in the USA the farmer would've been in his rights
And the burglar who lost his leg would've been jailed.
That's how it should be, as a brit I envy the US law .
I know that's an extreme example, but basically British law says can only use 'reasonable' force in situations like that, were not allowed to club people around the head who rob our homes .
We have to ask them politely to stay where they are until the police arrived, its bollox its wrong,
1000s of people protested and signed petitions asking for the farmer to be released, bc he did nothing wrong.
But government did sod all.,
@@Fallenangel_85 I don’t sleep much these days and also have a gun. I think I’ll do fine, thank you.
A quick check suggests that Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was around 18 1/2 at Tewkesbury and he was in command of the vangard of Edwards forces.
Yes, due to their role as figureheads and necessity to be present, it seems that you find more of the young nobles present the closer you get to the top magnates and royalty.
@@scholagladiatoria Same day as you loaded this video, there were running battles and skirmishes alongside Southend Beach. Lots of swords being brandished. The persons appear to have been in their late teens and early 20s. Every participant appeared to be a Moor or a Saracen, so I'm uncertain of how this would apply to medieval England..
@Matt: I check out your channel on a regular basis - and often there is another interesting video on a subject hardly anybody else thought of waiting for me. Like this one. Thank you! I certainly will enjoy watching it! 👍🙂
I've been wondering about this premise my entire life thank you
I have done reenactments in America but yours look like they are much more fun and cool.
Your video popped up on my feed Matt and the title caught my attention as I’m now 60 and a General history lover.
Really enjoyed it thanks.
There is an ongoing shift in history circles over the last couple of decades on the subject of how long did people live.
In the 70s when I was at school we were taught that most people in the distant past didn’t live that long. But this has changed with modern research and archeological techniques allowing us to more accurately work out individuals ages at death, mortality rates etc.
They were landed gentry, so they had to be old enough to have full inheritance to be proper claimant of these titles. Also they had to serve their lord/kings call regardless of age.
Sure but there's no actual old enough for that. You just needed the previous claimant to die. How often did that happen at a young age? Probably largely depends on which period and place. But it probably wasn't extremely rare at any point.
well there you go, they probably brought men at arms with them to serve the Lord/king. The probably hung out behind their men at arms.
For us older reenact-ors this was greatly appreciated ❤️⭐️
Correction about the battle of Visby: The townspeople (of Visby) weren't really involved in the battle. The losing side consisted mostly of people from the *countryside* with everything from (presumably) freeholders and yeomen up to countryside gentry and nobility.
I was about to write this, but I thought there was a chance someone else beat me to it. Glad I checked :)
Same here. Also wanted to add the possibly interesting fact that the main fighting force of the Swedish king had been routed by the Danish... due to better knowledge of the terrain 🙄
@Rasbiff
I once read a bit about the remains of the fighters that were unearthed at Visby.
Quite a few still had on their armor.
Much of which was seemingly of old vintage compared to the armor worn by most of the best Western combat forces at the time.
The wounds they suffered were atrocious too.
With one skeleton being found with both legs hacked off at the thigh.
Seemingly, with one hard blow from a large bladed two-handed sword or axe.
Others had arms, feet, or legs missing.
Or had skulls that were crushed or chopped in two with, again, one hard blow.
And if my memory serves of what I read.
Many suffered injuries to their backs or right sides of their bodies.
Cuts to legs in general were pretty common also.
Areas that a shield wouldn't cover all that well if someone were retreating.
I love these longer videos discussing a narrow(er) topic in great detail. They really scratch an itch for me.
Maybe someone has more information on this, but I once read that if a fighting man made it to 40 years old, his chances of living to 60 were pretty good. This kind of makes sense because in hand-to-hand combat, experience is perhaps more valuable than any other factor. When someone launches a blow at you, you've seen that particular technique before and you know how to counter it. I don't remember where I read it, so maybe it's not even true, but it's an interesting observation.
The older you are the better chance you have to live to an older age..common sense
@@king_jamz916
It's true. There are not many cases of people who died age 30 then going on to live to 80.
@@ungodlygripstrength 😂😂😂😂
Thank you! Well researched, your usual bright, cheerful delivery, and very, very interesting! Your program truly lives up to its name. Pray continue, sir!
The fact that several of these guys lived to around 70 after years of countless concussions and on top of not having modern medical technology and nutrition is pretty amazing.
People with terrible diets, and war/industrial damage could expect to live to 70-80 ...
Read of The Battle of 30 to learn how effective a full harness was.
The "average life expectancy" in X time period is one of the most misunderstood statistics out there. Mainly because people don't understand how high the infant mortality rate was in that period. You could have an average life expectancy of 40 years old but, if you survived to 2 years old, the average would jump up to 60.
It was skewed, but 70's probably too much for a regular person to aspire to. Like... even today, on 35 countries, the life expectancy at 15 index (to account for infant mortality) is lower than that.
@@silverjohn6037 Basically, this.
Yet another video covering something I didn’t know that I needed to know. Thanks. Makes this 65 year old feel tougher.
24:30 Hearing about this 72 year-old still fighting reminds me of King Théoden from Lord of the Rings, who was 70-71 in the books.
Yes, but the Steward of Gondor was part elf.
@@davidweihe6052 Théoden is neither part elf nor the Steward of Gondor.
The Spartan king Agesilaus commanded an army in battle in his 80's
@@kenneth9874a old wasp will sting the f out of your hand if you touch it.
Same for the old, strong and skilled.
They may not be able to hike, and carry lots of stuff… but they’ll stab ya 😂
Theoden was King of Rohan.
Denethor was Steward of Gondor.
never been this early on a Matt Easton video but awesome subject and couldn't help drop a comment and like
Thanks, Matt - that was both enlightening and entertaining! I'm in awe of the physical prowess of those 'oldies', i.e. over 45, fighting in the front line wearing armour!
The very wide range of of military leaders throughout history always threw me off bc there were teenagers and geriatrics beheading people in most parts of the world for most of history
Meritocracy is for both the teenagers and the old codgers if they are capable.
As long as you've never stopped training and don't get a major injury, age 35-45 is peak time for a fighter. You have the best combination of experience and physical capacity.
For military service peak age is 15 to 25. Above that and age plays a part.
@@Art-is-craft Debatable. Nowadays most special operations soldiers in Western professional armies are between 25-35, some up to early 40s (as they are picked among those who have some experience). Incidentally is about the same age as top athletes. Unless someone is gifted, it takes some years to train and get proficient in one’s field.
Obviously in war time it changes, and in places like Ukraine the average soldier age is between 37-42.
@@crimsonerrant
Most entrants to elite military is early twenties and they tend to have a period of service before training. The rigours of elite military are so intense that even Olympic athletes will be physically taxed. The older a body becomes the more damage it struggles to deal with. There is a reason why USMC has 28 as an age limit. There are exceptional cases though.
@@Art-is-craft I agree. But you are talking about the entry age, not the peak age. The peak is usually reached later (except in the case of really gifted people). Until 25 muscles are still being developed. Peak is usually reached in the 30s when development meets experience.
Some people can keep really fit in their 40s and continue in the military service up to their 50s (and in rare occasions 60s).
@@crimsonerrant
The hardest part of elite military training from physical point of view is the entry tests. While there is continued training throughout service it is nowhere near the entry training courses. Peak physicality is 16 to 25. Starting training after that period in such elite forces is extreme on the body. It is not to say a 32 year old cannot do it but the odds are stacked against that person.
Medieval Dead did an episode on the Battle of Towton, where they found the remains of some of the participants. If i remember correctly, there was a wide range of ages😊
I would expect that in battles the nobility would skew older than commoners, because the nobility would have trained from a young age, would have better armour, and would be worth ransoming. Those 3 factors would combine to make the nobility much more likely to survive any battles they might fight in without serious injury. The more likely they are to survive battles relatively unscathed, the more likely you are to see them on the battlefield much later in life. Commoners would generally be more poorly trained, would have less protective armour, and wouldn't be worth ransoming so enemies wouldn't try to capture them alive. That would make it much more likely for a commoner to be killed or suffer a serious injury (keeping in mind that any wound that gets infected can be life-threatening) that would prevent them from fighting in future battles, so commoners on the battlefield would likely skew at least somewhat younger. Mind you, when it comes to peasant levies in particular, I wonder if the demographics might be artificially skewed by the lord raising them to ensure that there are still enough relatively young and strong men working the fields. I suppose that might depend on things like the exact time of year, the reason for raising a levy, etc.
Also remember - no antibiotics --- so you hurt way less likely to survive
Thanks for the research and this very informative video, Mr. Easton.
Reminds me of Leonidas who was 60 at Thermopylae and was fighting alongside his men. Chad.
As someone who was watching the Tewkesbury reenactment a few weeks ago I just want to say that the battle reenactment itself was fantastic and THAT noise at the point the armoured centres smashed into each other got an audible gasp from the crowd around me 😆
In summary, for my own benefit later regarding the Battle of Tewkesbury and ages of knightly combatants:
It wasn't impossible, though somewhat uncommon, for a knight to be of late teens/early 20s.
The average age of the knightly class seemed to hover somewhere around late 20s-40s, with a smattering of late 40s-early 50s as well.
It was somewhat uncommon, though not impossible, for middle age or even nearing modern retirement ages of 50s, 60s, and even 70s to show up in full harness on the front lines.
That was not at all what I expected. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and research, I'll sound a bit less ignorant in the future.
The Order of the Hospital fielded many brothers aged 50+ at the Great Siege. Fra Jean de Valette was 70 and supposedly engaged in combat. The one English brother present, Fra Oliver Starkey was 42.
Well... my theory just went up in smoke! Great video,Thanks Matt.
Given that smoking was non-existent and physical activity was common among all segments of the population, it is not surprising that people remained reasonably physically active right up to the time of their death. In pre-industrial times, death was probably not due to old age per se, but mainly due to infectious diseases, cancer, accidents or violence.
Glad I tuned in. I would have said twenties and thirties, believing people dropped like flies very early in life from diseases, if not battles. Thank you for updating my info and understanding of those times. 👍
I read that if you made it through childhood you had decent chances to make 70
Yes, the average life expectancy is very skewed by abysmal survival rates for children
It was skewed, but 70's probably too much for a regular person to aspire to. Like... even today, on 35 countries, the life expectancy at 15 index (to account for infant mortality) is lower than that.
75 ... even the bible thinks 70-80 is normal
The only difference in the modern day is you are likely to survive until your first birthday, you are not likely to be killed before 40 in war, industry, or childbirth - so you will most likely survive until 75 ...
And so are more likely to survive until 100+ which more are doing ... . but the maximum lifespan has not changed
Yes, long life was less secure, you could die from an infected hang nail- but humans didn’t die of old age significantly younger.
Of course, you probably had a better chance of reaching 70 if you managed to avoid things like the Battle of Tewksbury!
Not 70, but 50 was fairly common from adulthood
As someone approaching his 40s, I found this inspiring 😅
The book is only of people with titles. There were probably quite a few younger people who had not yet inherited the title and so just listed as men at arms.
Great video Mr Easton. Very interesting.
You can’t be too old to die.
but apparentely for the internet millenials u can be too old to die for fiction.
Similarly, you can't be too young to live.
@@EbefrenRevohuh
@@revolutionaryhamburgerEhhhh... Only the good die young 😢
@revolutionaryhamburger American cluster bombs, Ukranian artillery shells and Russian mortars disagree
Matt, I'm an elderly Australian and I love your work
Any idea how often medieval soldiers suffered serious wounds and continued to fight battles after recovering? I kind of imagine that accumulated wounds would be more significant than aging when it comes to older soldiers in combat
It's a little past medieval, but Robert III de La Marck claimed he received over forty wounds & was left among the dead at Novara 1513. His 45-year-old father led a few other men-at-arms into the infantry melee to save him. Robert III continued military service after he recovered, fighting at Marignano 1515 & Pavia 1525. He died in 1537 at age 46. His father died a year before at age 68. It's possible the wounds Robert III received contributed to his relatively early death (from illness). His father also was seriously wounded at Novara 1513.
Thats a good question. It is definitly not unheard of for soldiers at least in the higher ranks (nobility and professional men at arms) to survive serious wounds. The best example would be the arrow wound to the face of Henry V at Shrewsbury. Also during excavations of mass graves at Towton they found skeletons with recovered battlewounds, one skull had a deep blade cut in the lower jaw and the bone showed signs of healing.
I think it came really down to your status/wealth and therefor the acces to armour protection and medical attention.
Don’t know how you ended up in my feed, maybe from following Brit medieval linguists, but am now subscribed !
Wow, you finally did Tewkesbury, tyvm, Matt.
If I remember my biology correctly (am a layman at bio, so take this with a grain of salt), men's natural muscle growth ends somewhere in the early or mid 20's, so it makes sense to me for retainers and aristocrats to normally start their front-line military service in their 20's.
No point sending a 16 year old to die on the front lines if the lord he serves can afford to have him keep training until he finishes growing, plus if he's the firstborn son his lord probably want him to have a son of his own to continue the family lineage.
I feel an excel spreadsheet coming on.
One question would be whether the squires at this time supported the battle line or if they were considered non-combatants.
Well if you take Shakespeares version of events at Agincourt, which was only 50yrs earlier, the French attacked the baggage train, killing the all the squires causing great anger as being "against the rules of war". This suggests that as they were in the baggage train, they were regarded as non-combatants, as no-one in the baggage train would be expected to fight other than maybe protecting the wagons and the animals that drew them.
What an interesting video. Perhaps that book should be recommended reading for all TV and film makers.
I imagine reenactors are fairly representatives of nobles and other wealthy soldiers but I would think the mass of poorer and levied soldiers were generally younger.
This was super useful. Thanks Matt.
For an archer--some of those war bows were 150 pound+ draw--hard to imagine anyone younger than 18 being able to draw consistently.
Yeah, but you're on the upper end there. If you consider a normal distribution of strength, how much people would be expected to fire at a given battle, and how modern people struggle to pull that, I doubt any more than single percentages of people drew 150lbs.
It's not muscle strength that matters as much. Its tendon strength. Which can take 5 years to get.
I would've been ready by 15
@@DrVictorVasconcelosthe norm was likely around 125lbs
Common people did manual labour as children at that time. If you were not too poorly off and extremely malnourished you'd be strong enough as soon as you hit puperty. So easily in your mid teens.
@@guseks8413 Also, archers were highly-skilled professional soldiers, so they weren't exactly from the commoner class. It's quite likely that they would have started training with bows as children.
5min section: Reporting!
Glorious info, Matt!
+][+
Were the Tewkesbury knights typically the head of their household? That would reduce the chances of younger people appearing, since their fathers may stil be alive (and be the ones taking part).
Thanks mate. My Irish ancestors called up the commoners of their Tuath/Septs to be Kerns
The most dangerous men were always 30-50 year olds who were still very fit.
Top stuff. Amazing, and Tewkesbury is a super town well worth a visit.
I was 37 when I joined the Army, 2005. 45 when I ets 2013.
Some of us are just oddly gifted
Was the age cap different back then? I thought it was 35. I'm trying to get into my state guard right now since they have a higher age cap.
It should be less on age more on other requirements
@@christiandauz3742
Age definitely has to play a part.
Great context, Matt! Thank you.
I could tell you a lot about the military history of the Grays / Greys / Greyes. They are my ancestors!
They were always very high status from the battle of Hastings (Ansetil de Greye) all the way into the 16th Century.
During Domesday the family broke off between the South and the North where the surname split between 'Gray' in the north, and 'Grey' in the south. The northern Grays saw their prime during the Scottish war of Independence being a close friend of the King Edwards.
Their downfall was attempting to assassinate King Henry V due to a serious falling out.
Great serious history. And surprising. I'm 74, fit, a martial artist, but I couldn't imagine fighting in full armour hand-to-hand. Astounding.
I suspect that your source is skewing the ages. Your 'population' are those who have banners. They are established leaders, which takes both time and experience. I suspect that they had younger brothers, cousins and sons who served as esquires or men-at-arms etc, having not yet acquired their own banner.
I would imagine that just like in an army today, you have the officer and career soldiers (knights and retainers) who keep doing this until they're of retirement age, and you have the levies that are drafted into military service from the younger generations.
The young ones are there to fight, and the old ones are there to make sure all the fighting men are on the same battlefield on the same day (and put them in formation, interpret the flag signals, etc. etc.)
You would have wanted experienced soldiers to act as officers. Even if they weren't as athletic as they might once have been, the extra experience of older soldiers would have been valuable. The hierarchies inherent in feudal society meant that commanders were generally expected to be 'high born' so it's not really surprising that older nobles would have been in demand on the battlefield. It would have been a self-selecting group of men who were still generally in good health and the average age of a common soldier or man at arms may have been different.
As a tangent, there's a bit of an over-correction going on regarding the topic of longevity in popular history. Recently I've seen quite a lot of popular historians stressing the impact of infant mortality on average historical life spans, implying that the reason life expectancy was so low throughout most of history was the number of children who died in infancy, and that people who lived to adulthood otherwise had life expectancies comparable to our own.
Whilst it's true that infant mortality had a disproportionate impact on life expectancy, it was still much lower for most of history, even in those who lived to adulthood. the average age at death of a Norman or Plantagenet king of England (a data set that excludes any infants) was 48. Even if you remove all of the violent and suspicious deaths, it only goes up to 55.4. Not a single one reached 70. If you look at Roman Emperors, from the Julio-Claudian to the Nerva-Antonine Dynasties (again, no babies) it's 54.4 or 62.4 with all the violent and suspicious deaths removed. If you compare these numbers to the ages at death of 20th century British Prime Ministers the difference is stark. The average age at death (of those that have died so far) was 80.7. Even if you remove Margaret Thatcher (on the basis that women typically live longer anyway), then it's still 80.4. Even without the disproportionate impact of infant mortality, historical life expectancy was dramatically shorter than it has been in modern times. For much of history there were plenty of people who lived to old age, but they would have considered themselves lucky to have done so, as most of their peers didn't.
The problem with using Romans as an example of life expectancy was that they were far beyond medieval lifestyle. They bathed regularly, ate rich diets, could if desired live in low density areas and clearly had an understanding of infectious disease.
@@Art-is-craftMedieval people bathed regularly,ate nourishing. meals understood hygiene also...Ignorant people(Even some Historians,,) love to perpetuate this fallacy.They washed their hands preceding and succeding meals....How many people do that today. !???
@@annabelladebonnay8320
Most people who lived in the dark ages as in Medieval lived in extremely poverty and very few had the luxury of Roman hygiene and life style.
Great vodeo. Very interesting.
Some kind of visual representation, like a bar chart or something, would have been very useful.
My general thought is that young (14 year olds) would be youngest engaged in fights.
With the additional caveats that those would be low-skill levied troops (e.g. pikemen) and squires caught in battle with enemies that didn't respect the rules of war, as they were with supply trains, not deployed on the field.
I'd bet to the same thing. Fifers during the following centuries were either preteens or early teenagers
All people mentioned in the video were knights. It was rare for a knight to be younger than 21 since the training commonly took 14 years to finish (with a few exceptions)
12 years could be capable but would be very rare.
You see this brought up a lot but I wouldn't want a 14 year old at my side in a battle even back then. There's a world of difference between a strong man at 25-35 than any teenager.
I just love all your swords, I thought I had a nice collection.
The life expectancy statistic based on fetal survival rate is such a poor instrument to use to gauge the age of people throughout history. It's the same as it is today; add and subtract some variables.
The Bible says "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; And if by reason of strength they be fourscore years" i.e. 70-80 ... most died before the age of 1, a lot died 20-40 in warfare, work, and childbirth but if you survived ... then you were expected to live to 75 ...
We also live in a *highly* blessed time with sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics and a bunch of medical knowledge that would have been unheard of two centuries ago. A good chunk of that modern life expectancy is through mass sickness/pandemics being once in a generation things as opposed to a regular occurrence.
Once antibiotics stop functioning on an easy and massive level, you will see a year or two shaved off that modern number. COVID and the knock-on effects dented the US life expectancy numbers enough to throw it back to 1995 levels for a year.
People really do live significantly longer on average over the last century or two. It's not just infant mortality, though that's the major factor driving down historical life expectancy. But there were lots & lots of medieval elites who died relatively young (as adults). Getting sick & passing in one's forties (for instance) was much more common before modern medicine, including for the most powerful people in society.
Disease, malnutrition, weather and hard living meant the vast majority did not live beyond 35. An outlier was living from 50 to 80. The idea that claiming modern medicine makes no difference is absurd.
@@Art-is-craft That's only true if count infant mortality. According to an article by Marianne Jonker, the life expectancy at 25 of tenants in medieval English was 25.7. So one of these folks who made it to 25 could expect to live to a touch past 50. That's still young to die by modern standards, of course. Life expectancy at 25 is around 50-55 in the USA as of 2021, so public health & scientific medicine have made huge improvements.
This is a fascinating analysis! Any chance we'll get more of this for other battles? Otherwise, I think I'll look up that source and see what else they've published.
I’m a history teacher. My students never believe me when I tell them that premodern people could live into their seventies.
Then we talk about infant mortality, which was staggering. Once you made it to age ten, you had decent odds of living into old age. Especially as a man. Childbirth was considerably riskier for mothers back then than it is now.
Walking through a 19th Century graveyard shows how many babies and very young children died. About half died before age five.
@@RebeccaOreMy great great grandparents lost their first six children before the age of five. In 1864 they lost three children in the spring, summer and fall. My great grandfather was the seventh child and the first who lived to adulthood.
@@serahloeffelroberts9901lucky for you! ❤
Very interesting! I hope you do some other famous battles if this video does well.
Weren’t baptismal dates,even for commoners, generally recorded in England and records kept at the parish level? The problem is not so much knowing when someone noted therein was born, but rather which commoners were at the battle at where they were born/baptized? Or so I’d think…
You were baptised as soon as possible ... they are very near the birth date
the issue is that Parish Records are patchy and vague
We're talking over 550 years ago - notwithstanding the physical survival of the ledgers over that length of time against fire, damp, mould and mice, including the upheavals of the Reformation - record keeping could vary from meticulous to non existent with all shades in between.
Even with modern records I'm unable to positively identify one of my second great grandmothers.
Not sure about England, in Germany that's the case. But a lot of those records were lost in the 30 years war
Baptism records only became required 1538, by the brand new Church of England. I presume it was Henry 8th improving religious control of the population.
Records before that are not so good.
@@Muritaipet It was also a trend of the time. French and German parish registers (i.e. records of baptisms, marriages and burials) were introduced at almost exactly the same time. You are right that for any time before that we have virtually no systematic records of who was born when etc.; what pre-16th c. records there are only mention age in passing (if at all) and are limited to those who firstly, did a lot of property transactions, and then kept them, all of which means that documentation is okay for the nobility and gentry but very incomplete or inexistent for most other people.
Really informative video. Thank you
"I'm 37."
"What?"
"I'm 37, I'm not old."
I don't think anyone would call that person old unless he/she really looks old for that age
Monte Python
Love this random bit of history!
I was a street cop for 33 years in a major city, I’ve been in so many fights that I forgot 98% of them. But I was taking people into custody in my 50’s. I’m 6’1” and have been over 200 lbs since I was 21. The age you can fight up to matters on training and your overall health and attitude.
Good one! Thank you.
The age of knights is also being raised when visiting museums and see the surprisingly small armours
There were many knights who were 6ft or taller, but also many who were around average at the time, so around 5’6” to 5’8”. Armors significantly smaller than that were probably for training adolescents, or for them to use in parade.
People on average were shorter then. This was something brought home to me as a six foot woman touring English castles. Ducking through just about every doorway.
EDIT: And Scottish...
Really enjoyed this .
Interesting video, Matt! Thanks!
Excellent video! The numbers do not really surprise me as a medievalist, but it's great to have that book as a single slice of time with good information (on the aristocracy, of course). I would have liked if you had just done a quick spreadsheet out of that book and given the age spread in a chart, as well as the median and mean.
Well done.
Very instructive
Fascinating, Matt - thanks...
☝️😎
My 25th great grandfather William Marshall was in his 70s at the battle of Lincoln❤
William Marshall was like a super human,
And if we didn't have so much evidence to support his existence and most of his adventures nobody would believe he was real .
He was a rare thing, a true man of honour who was loyal and honest and did his duty , he wasn't bothered about money or gaining titles, he couldn't be brought, and as you say he was remarkable and remained a fearless warrior until he died in his early 70s .
You must be really proud to be related and have his blood running through your veins.
Without him England may have been ruled by the French king Louis the 8th and become part of the French empire
Because of Marshall the magna Carta became law and not just a bunch of words that ended up in the bin.
He well deserves to be known as
"the greatest knight " ⚔
Wonderful video!!
I agree with the talking bottoms, good vid!
Sehr schön, Danke.
Hi, Matt! Great video as always. I wonder if you could talk about jousting type shields (ecranche, targe), but outside of the sports context. What are the advantages of using those, for example, on foot? Thank you very much.
I was surprized not to see a graphic of age distribution, especially when Matt said he made some research :)
I'd be interested to see all these ages as points on a graph to see if there is some manner of curve or trends and then compare it with other data to see if there might be some larger events (plagues, famine, other wars or campaigns) that might affect generational cohorts.
It might interesting to see all those ages in a graph. It could provide a visual idea of the age-range reality. A few long-held illusions shattered by this video.
I can also imagine that, given that feudalism relies on interfamilial and personal connections, there was a similar sort of situation you have with a lot of 'experience in the workplace' scenarios. It's not hard to imagine that you simply don't get to be a knight until you're a bit older and get the authority and build up the social network and familiarity to get the promotion to knighthood from the knight you serve as a squire. - Personal tutelage and apprenticeship is quite important in the medieval age, so age-based junior-senior dynamics would be rife even in the martial classes. I love insight like that.
I wonder if squires were allowed to fight in the retinues of their master for experience and perhaps sought to prove themselves.