Putting the Middle Ages in Perspective
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- A lot of us modern folks tend to think of the Middle Ages as a very compressed period of time, when in reality things couldn't be more different. My aim with this departure from our usual format is to help bring the Medieval Era and especially the notion of different armor styles into perspective within the historical context and timeline.
Here's my take on the 'rapid tech advancement' piece.
I do admit that technology growth tends to accelerate at more of an exponential pace than a linear pace like time does, however I think perspective is very important here, and first-person experience even more so. What I mean is there was no Industrial or Digital revolution to the 1540 Tudor knight. So from his perspective, technology had progressed only at the pace he had seen, and thus the changes from 1066 to 1540 are pretty impressive to him. From our perspective, where you can watch a video about the knight in 1540 on your touch-screen phone wherever you happen to be, the difference between a mail hauberk and compression lames on the plate harness protecting the inside of the 1540 knight's elbows and knees doesn't seem as proportional a leap in technology, but from the perspective of the knight in 1540, I would argue that it certainly was. So for us to lump him in with the Norman cavalry is to ignore the context of their time.
As you go further back in time, the tech advances are slower, but to the person in that time, they are still riding that ever-increasing wave crest of technological advancement, so when they look back it may seem more accelerated to them than it does to us. In 1,000 years they will probably consider our most advanced automatic rifles on par in technology with a ca. 1380 handgonne because I suspect technology will continue to increase at an exponential pace. To them they may think 'a firearm is just a firearm' as we tend to think a 'polearm is just a polearm.' When we don't use these tools every day, no matter how much we study them, we may never appreciate the advancement from a Dane Axe to a late 15th century Pollaxe as much as Sigismund of Tyrol did. To the person in their own time, the distant past always seems more compressed than the recent past. We should try to appreciate the human element in all of this, which inevitably drives our perception.
Facebook - / knyghterrant
Support - / knyghterrant
#medievalarmor #livinghistory #knyghterrant
Here's my take on the 'rapid tech advancement' piece:
I do admit that technology growth tends to accelerate at more of an exponential pace than a linear pace like time does, however I think perspective is very important here, and first-person experience even more so. What I mean is there was no Industrial or Digital revolution to the 1540 Tudor knight. So from his perspective, technology had progressed only at the pace he had seen, and thus the changes from 1066 to 1540 are pretty impressive to him. From our perspective, where you can watch a video about the knight in 1540 on your touch-screen phone wherever you happen to be, the difference between a mail hauberk and compression lames on the plate harness protecting the inside of the 1540 knight's elbows and knees doesn't seem as proportional a leap in technology, but from the perspective of the knight in 1540, I would argue that it certainly was a pretty big deal. For us to lump him in with the Norman cavalry is to ignore the context of his time.
As you go further back in time, the tech advances are slower, but to the person in that time, they are still riding that ever-increasing wave crest of technological advancement, so when they look back it may seem more accelerated to them than it does to us. In 1,000 years they will probably consider our most advanced automatic rifles on par in technology with a ca. 1380 handgonne because I suspect technology will continue to increase at an exponential pace. To them they may think 'a firearm is just a firearm' as we tend to think a 'polearm is just a polearm.' When we don't use these tools every day, no matter how much we study them, we may never appreciate the advancement from a Dane Axe to a late 15th century Pollaxe as much as Sigismund of Tyrol did. To the person in their own time, the distant past always seems more compressed than the recent past. We should try to appreciate the human element in all of this, which inevitably drives our perception.
A question that came up to me is...
Would this tudor knight in battle with a normann at hastings be as superior to him as a modern marine would be to the tudor knight?
I agree completly with you and your point that we should not think of the "middle ages" as one big lump of time where technology stagnated.
I think the difference in perspective would me more like we looking at pre 2nd world war folks.
A group of 2nd world war soldiers would be just as threatening to modern soldiers as a group of 1000's soldiers (medieval) would be to 1500's (renaissance).
I have to disagree with the notion you raise at the end of the video. While yes the amount of time between the Norman and the 1540's Tudor knight is similar to the time between us and the 1540's knight, to compare the perspective we have of the past as being similar as to that of the Tudor knight is I think inaccurate. In your picture you are controlling a craft that flies through the air, are not wearing anything that visibly resembles armour (excepting your helmet) are probably carrying a gun you can fit in a large pocket, have no title or standing of any kind as he would understand it and may or may not have ever even interacted with a horse or any other livestock, this is aside from the fact that you grew up in a democratic capitalist society exposed to a huge range of culture and education, are possibly in no way religious and have entirely different values when it comes to things like property and family. My point being your lifestyle and the knight's are vastly different. So different that in many ways we cannot even accurately understand the differences. Which is part of why we look back on his "simpler" time with nostalgia and fascination and watch the kinds of content you provide in order to gain clearer insights into the mindset of the time.
But the Norman's life and the Tudor knight's are not so dissimilar. They both wear comparable equipment, use comparable weapons in similar ways to execute similar functions on the battlefield in a culture that had many of the same touchstones (monarchy, a ruling/warrior caste, similar tiers of society, animal husbandry, the same foundational religion etc.) The pieces of equipment are more advanced versions but not so greatly that you couldn't see someone wielding equivalent equipment in the latter person's time. In the 1540's you could still find people wearing mail, a helmet and using a spear and shield, possibly on the battlefield with the Tudor knight (though they were probably from further east so perhaps not). Whereas today I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find people using Tudor equipment in the same theatre of war as a helicopter (though I would love to see that.)
Also I'm not sure the average Tudor knight had the same understanding of history that you do, I don't know they would have spent much time thinking about how the equipment from almost 500 years earlier differed. My understanding of the views of the time is that they tended to think the past looked similar enough to their present just with different decorations and fashions, which is why you saw a lot of contemporary art depicting ancient heroes with contemporary items. Part of the reason we think of the two guys occupying the same space in history, is because the Tudor guy kind of thought the same thing. Sure it was a different era and they romanticized the deeds, but they didn't really think the differences were too great when it came to how they did things. I could be wrong, but the general disregard for the past when it came to function of equipment and how it was used is part of why modern HEMA and reenactment communities exist. We're trying to understand how they did things, but they often didn't think leaving any kind of record was important. Our ancestors were less interested in preserving or understanding how things were used in the past and more in how useful they were in their present.
All of this is to say I think that when we look back at the era of the Knight in shining armour we're looking at another world that is so different from ours that everything fascinates us (Tudor belts are super cool), when the Tudor knight was looking back it was at the events and the people, the world was similar enough that he probably didn't give the differences between them and his present much thought. I think past compression is not a new thing, and it was so prevalent because so many things stayed looking so similar for so long.
I think this is our biggest challenge as students or historians: to assume the perspective of the time we study. I could, by the way, think of two awesome companion videos: 1) show a timeline of knights together with a really poor infantryman. That way we could gauge our fantasy settings more finely! 2) A video about Eastern Roman armour. To my untrained eye the Byzantine kataphraktoi look substantially different from any more Western knights!
@@hawlitakerful I think a 1500's knight in full plate armour could be roughly as invulnerable against 1000's knight as a modern elite soldier against 1500's knight. Sure the outdated one can win in both cases but not unless the high-tech one makes a devastating mistake or gets seriously outnumbered. But I don't know, it's hard to compare things that were never meant to be against each other.
Your knights fighting each-other wearing armor from different centuries is equivalent to my issues with stegosaurus fighting a T-Rex.
Haha, very much so. People don't appreciate that Stegosaurus was as ancient to T-Rex as T-Rex is to us! It's staggering to consider that animals like Dilophosaurus are twice as separated in time from T-Rex as he is to us. By the way, I've watched your channel for years, happy to see you here!
Vanargand “theory”
Co...Cody?
@Vanargand Terrible bait
Vanargand 🙄
I used to say to my friends: These medieval movies are the equivalent of making a movie where a guy wearing a napoleonic uniform has an AK-47 in his hands...
+Felipe Locca "He will stand out more on the battlefield"
Now I understand why heroes get so many kills.
+Felipe Locca Guns of The South?
You're actually thinking of PBF, here's the link: pbfcomics.com/209/
Glad to help.
does Ian practice HEMA
7:13
The man in red clothes represent the modern "keyboard warrior". The very epitome of modern warfare.
hahahahaha...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Such a great video, this is one of my favorite covering these topics and even though I watched it a while ago I find myself coming back to it for reference. Truly excellent work.
+I am Shad Thanks Shad! I'm glad that you're finding it useful. I'm a big fan of your videos as well. I find them very thought provoking, especially your more philosophical stuff, and your katana series is second to none!
+Knyght Errant I'm honored sir, thank you. Keep up the excellent work and best of luck!
I'm looking forward to movies from 2500 that have knights fighting helicopters.
So underrated of a comment...
🤣
Fantastic, very well done ^^
+Metatron Grazie mille!
Knyght Errant Di niente :3
Cleopatra lived closer to our time, than she did the building of the pyramids.
+Ze Rubenator And we live closer in time to the Tyrannosaurus Rex than T-Rex did to Dilophosaurus :) Perspective is important in all areas of study!
Knyght Errant
Yup.
+Knyght Errant because of them being late Renaissance, they were likely not in pitched melee battles, but in battles with later sword styles, bucklers, muskets, and blunderbusses correct? Because though the first gun arrives in europe in the 1300's, melees remain for awhile.
Does Ian practice HEMA
THANK YOU! I get tired of telling folk about this matter again and again. now I have something to send them to watch :)
+LARPBeard You're welcome! That's exactly why I made this. I'm sick of explaining it over and over :)
+Knyght Errant Im not sure about the Order in your line of History. The guy in the red and dark blue coat with the painted helmet looks 3 places younger than he is standing at and the guy with the dane axe next to the guy with no armor looks more like a viking.
Nighti88 He shouldn't be in the timeline at all. He's wearing a mix of random time periods, but unfortunately that photograph was the only one I had that represented 1000 - approx 1600... just omit him from your mind :)
This historical Doppler Effect is such a fascinating phenomenon.
That is a *great* way to phrase it
Fantastic video. I took a class a couple years ago entitled "Science and Technology in Asian History" and the thing the professor, whose doctorate was in Indonesian technological history, tried to drill into us is that we cannot view these cultures the same way we view modern societies. They had very different ideas on technology, morals, what it is to be a productive member of society, even. Many of these cultures would be as foreign to us as we feel to modern cultures on different continents today. We cannot view them through a modern lens without distorting the realities of the period. You do a fantastic job of illustrating this, and I salute you for it.
It's far too easy for us to look at historical technologies and cultures as a linear progression, where one technology and culture is inherently more advanced than another and ignore the actual context of the piece being examined. To the knightly equivalent at the Battle of Hastings, his weapons and armor would have been state of the art, the equivalent of a modern fighter jet, and as you say this can easily be distorted since this is a technology so far antiquated by modern standards. We see this trend even if period works, as old stories are modernized to try to appeal to the contemporary audiences. I'm certain that an individual of the 1500s could make the same sorts of mistakes with technologies from the 1000s being conflated with technologies from the 500s. Human experience encompasses several decades, not several centuries, thus rendering these scales unintuitive.
Well put. To add to that, the victorians were also infamous for their medieval statues and paintings of lumping several hundred years of armour technologies and fashions statements together in the same peice.
Before getting all worked up about Hollywood producers, you should remember that all the late Middle Ages stories describe King Arthur and his knights as heavy cavalry with lances and plate armor in like 500 AD. Even medieval people were terrible at getting medieval history right : )
+Copydot It gets even better when you read Chaucer and you get a Duke of Ancient Athens and the highborn love interest on a pedestal named Emily.
+- KoperKat Medieval art and literature loved taking characters from ancient history and mythology and depicting them as idealised versions of contemporary knights and ladies. The idea was not to be historically accurate (whatever that means for legendary characters like Arthur or Theseus), but to serve as models of virtue and provide a bit of escapist fantasy while they were about it.
Copydot that is beacause these stories were popular 800 years after King arthur's time. That is like us talking about late medieval stories.
Yeah, their way of putting a medieval spin on pre-medieval stories isn't too different from when we made a modern retelling of Romeo & Juliet using cars and 9mm handguns :D
King Arthur wasn't at all the real story. The story of King Arthur is actually about Charlemagne, which could possibly be a result of the Norman Conquest.
That is very well said!
One thing , since this term is so misunderstood, Dark Ages do not refer to unwashed people covered in dirt, thinking that world is flat (although some I am sure fit that bill). Rather Dark Ages is a historical term that references era, after historical era began, within Human history which have little to no written documentation. For instance Greece had Dark Ages between 7th and 5th Century BC.
Secondly, I love your horse! I mean the one with a spinning blade over head. I am going to go on a limb here and say you would have had a slight advantage over the other two knights ;)
+Marek Dohojda
I'm pretty sure unwashed people covered in dirt thinking the world is flat is still an ongoing issue nowadays...
>unwashed
Don't know what the fuck this is about, cleanliness is not a modern invention. In fact, the only people who looked down on washing were early modern.
>thinking the earth is flat
Maybe some peasants somewhere. It had been common knowledge for a very long time that the earth was round.
Marek Dohojda actually, people in the medieval times knew the world was a globe. You can look up photos of statues made in those times, especially of kings or Jesus holding a globe in one hand.
Marek Dohojda you can also read an article on wikipedia about this myth. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
the mid-late 14th century is my favourite/most interesting time period imo. The mix between mail, plate, and lots of different liveries on so many soldiers is the perfect mix for me.
As a 35-year member of the SCA (and a lifelong educator), THANK YOU!
I think the Middle Ages really end when the New World is found by Columbus. They did all use a cruciform sword right?
I wanna see the future movies of 3000. "Pirates of the Somali" which would have pirates calling for rum and having a pirate council. Osama Bin Laden wielding a scimintar with Bush wielding a longsword or lightsabers.
+Bob MiLaplace The last part already sort of has been made. Its called Hot Shots part duex and it features a fight between Saddam Hussein and the President of the US. With lightsabers
+Bob MiLaplace well.. not quite. a lot would e using swords with finger rings, side rings and siometimes a very smple knucklebow
aka, they had side swords but some would have mabe had longswords. ut even those had side rings for the most part
+Bob MiLaplace
Not really, too keep it short borders of historical periods are up to debate, and it is wrong to cut them off by some one event, it did not seem so for people who lived at them time.
+Bob MiLaplace Just in one history department of a University (where I studied), the periodization of the middle ages varied so wildly that the latest starting point were later than the earliest end point.
Basically, the initial term middle ages was used to describe what was between ancient civilization and the new civilization. As a late medieval scholar, that meant something like fall of rome - Carolingian Empire or . Some modern understandings of the term place the norwegian (It was a Norwegian university) middle ages after the viking age (so 1030, stiklestad/1066, stamford bridge) and lasting until the reformation (1536, IIRC). Some scholars have even measured the middle ages from 1000 to 1800, making a video on medieval armour include quite a wide range of styles.
@Vapor Fuck right off with boasting about your academic achievement of "fully educated on the history of the western civilization".
Firts off, everyone has a big dick on the internet.
Secondly, you really don't sound like anyone who has ever studied history on an academic level. Historians generally know well enough to not just group "the western civilization" as one, singular civilization, not to mention the relatively rare occurance that anyone talk about any civilizations anymore. It's like, you find it occasionally in pop history, and a bit more often in fascist propaganda pieces. But even they know the term is largely passe by now.
Thirdly, your arguments read like a high schooler that argues about video games. Not that it is wrong being in high school and liking video games, but your argument is circular and based purely on your own romantic fantasy about how medieval people were. It doesn't matter whether it is even correct, that is not the kind of argumentation you bring to the table if you want to swing your big dick around.
I might be wrong in interpreting who you are, but at least consider that this is how you appear. If you don't want people to think you are a boastful high schooler that believe in hundred year old outdated theories of history - don't act like one.
I've learned so much from watching your channel. thank you so much!
You're very welcome, and thank you for the kind words!
"My horse had rotor-blades instead of hooves."
As a second half of the XIII century re-enactor, I have to thank you from the bottom of my unshiny, mail-clad heart.
This really puts in perspective where we are in history, and how we tend to fantasize about where we'll be in 400 years or so with things like Star Trek etc. Thanks so much for this :D.
Omg Yes! I'm so done with seeing anachronistic equipment and outfits on Hollywood depictions of the middle ages!
Movie producers: Oh, this movie is set during the crusades let's give our actor a big two handed sword to swing around!
Historical advisor: Actually during 11th century two handed swords didn't exist yet. Why not just give him an arming sword?
Movie producers: Nonsense! A two handed sword will make him more badass and stand out more!
Historical advisor: But... It's not historically accurate...
Movie producers: NOBODY CARES!
+usaid alfatih have you seen lindybeige
and dont forget...dirt for everyone
And all the BROWN CLOTHING! Even the nobles and aristocrats wear brown or very drab clothes!
+usaid alfatih what he has is more akin to a longsword tbh, about 100 years out of date but not as horrendously so as one might think...
+usaid alfatih And LOTS of leather. Make it just short of a biker or S&M convention.
Morion helmets being used by 9th century Saxons in History Channel's Vikings. Just Lol and face palm is all I can do.
***** Such as a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with history. And the occasional rehashed series or documentary often times stripped down even further with less detail or truths. :P
Ikr
+Mike Wazofski they have been.
+Rollo Red What part were they wearing it?
Monkeeyo I don't remember exactly some of the episodes in season 3 I believe
To throw in two cents on why it's seemingly more acceptable to have late period armor against mail (maille, I know, but habit), is probably because to those who are not doing in depth research it all seems 'comparable' - it's metal armor, people are fighting each other with steel hand weapons, crossbows, and maybe some very early guns. Not helping it is that Dungeons and Dragons has plate armor, while an improvement over mail, ultimately only offers an additional four AC points rather than being the massive jump it would be realistically, especially since a level up or two for a Fighter would via BAB knock out quite a bit of that. But that's my two cents - they seem comparable enough at a glance. Heck I'd even argue that it's kind of like Minutemen and Napoleonic - yeah it would look different but ultimately they seem similar enough. Colored uniforms, muskets, formations. It's a misconception, but one that I think is understandable for those who don't do a lot of research. But yeah, the Middle Ages covers a wide period and unless you're expressly covering all of them (IE, Medieval II: Total War) or are taking some liberties knowingly but still being close enough and doing it for the sake of fun (IE, Mount & Blade which besides having not!Vikings fighting not!Mongols fighting not!France/HRE fighting not!Sassanids among others, you've got armors and weapons from different periods side by side when it nominally takes place in 1257 CE, but it's still mostly early/early high weapons, so no Gothic Plate next to Norman maille)
This guy needs more subs, really I have not seen anyone break down not only this topic but any topic he talks about as throughly as he does. Great channel Ian, have enjoyed every video so far
Thank you sir, I appreciate it!
For real, this is amazing stuff!
Thanks for this! Great video and incredibly educational. I've taken a few (university) history classes, and none of them have laid it out this clearly and concisely. AND you were a pilot! So sick!!!
Really glad you've made this video. Im always telling people to take into consideration the perspective of the dates of history. I have people tell me that a person that lived in a certain castle in 1280 mightve have known the person that built it in 1100. They don't realise that's 170 years apart.
I explain to them if I built a castle in 2017 would I know the owner of the castle in the year 2187. It's great cause I can just send them this videos
Hey Ian,
Just a heads up, there’s also one other event that defines the High Middle Ages as well, and that is the rise of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century. Though mostly a part of Asian history, the Mongols did invade Europe and were even planning to siege Vienna at some point.
Something else worth noting is that mail armour actually became more expensive than plate in the later periods, despite it falling lower on the typical armour tiers of pop culture (it was just too man-power centric, especially when Europe was recovering from the Black Death and industry was coming in to mass produce plate).
Another fun tidbit is that there were some incredible anachronisms in some wars. Jack Churchill went into battle with a claymore, longbow, and bagpipes--during World War 2. WW1 and 2 also features makeshift maces and flails, and other "medieval" esque weaponry. There are a few conflicts, including an uprising in Mexico just before World War 1, where they ended up using black powder muskets and whatever they could find for their troops. Ancient battlefields likely encountered similar oddities at times, but movies do not present this to be as accurate or interesting as the real anachronisms.
7:02 The visual punetry is just beautiful. 😂
Thanks you very much for doing this video. It saves a lot of time looking though various webpages and comparing/contrasting the styles of medieval equipment. I really like the panoramic pic of all the warriors in chronological order.
I'm in the middle of researching my first harness(mid to late 1400s). Your videos have been an amazing help to understanding the parts and history of armor.
Mind absolutely blown. Thanks for this. You really drove that point home in the end comparing a modern human to a 16th century knight to the 11th century knight.
I’d love to see more vids about the high medieval armor, like mostly mail with maybe little bits of plate, from the 13th to early-mid 14th centuries.
Thank you! I have searched and searched for an explination on the time differences of full plate armor vs previous armor types and have never found anything. This gives me a MUCH better idea of everything, dates are important to my understanding of things.
i love this video, i have to so many groups that have a man in plate armor fighting a viking, now i have a vid to help educate them
Very pertinent video.
Also, for whatever reason this reminds me both of Don Quijote by Cervantes and Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory.
You make a very good point about perceived modernity. There is a very old saying (and I cannot remember who said it, nor can I find it) that goes: "All ages are modern to those that live it"; or words to that effect.
great insight video, you're totally right. I see this all the time in videogames (I'm an avid gamer), a very representative example is the game called Chivalry: Medieval warfare, where you can see a popurri of knights from different eras fighting each other like they're equal. There are crusader era knights with great helms, full plated knights with visors, nasal helmets, brigandines, among other innacuracies
It's a really good video and topic to discuss about.
I think one of the problems we, as modern people, might have is just the fact that now we're making huge leaps in technological advancement.. things didn't progress quite so fast back in the medieval period for a number of reasons. We've seen massive changes in just the past century, but we've entered a period of really rapid research and development.. things weren't always quite so fast.
+Foksuh Here's my take on the 'rapid tech advancement' piece.
I do admit that technology growth tends to accelerate at more of an exponential pace than a linear pace like time does, however I think perspective is very important here, and first-person experience even more so. What I mean is there was no Industrial or Digital revolution to the 1540 Tudor knight. So from his perspective, technology had progressed only at the pace he had seen, and thus the changes from 1066 to 1540 are pretty impressive to him. From our perspective, where you can watch a video about the knight in 1540 on your touch-screen phone wherever you happen to be, the difference between a mail hauberk and compression lames on the plate harness protecting the inside of the 1540 knight's elbows and knees doesn't seem as proportional a leap in technology, but from the perspective of the knight in 1540, I would argue that it certainly was. So for us to lump him in with the Norman cavalry is to ignore the context of their time.
As you go further back in time, the tech advances are slower, but to the person in that time, they are still riding that ever-increasing wave crest of technological advancement, so when they look back it may seem more accelerated to them than it does to us. In 1,000 years they will probably consider our most advanced automatic rifles on par in technology with a ca. 1380 handgonne because I suspect technology will continue to increase at an exponential pace. To them they may think 'a firearm is just a firearm' as we tend to think a 'polearm is just a polearm.' When we don't use these tools every day, no matter how much we study them, we may never appreciate the advancement from a Dane Axe to a late 15th century Pollaxe as much as Sigismund of Tyrol did. To the person in their own time, the distant past always seems more compressed than the recent past. We should try to appreciate the human element in all of this, which inevitably drives our perception.
Knyght Errant Yep.
I mean I was well aware of the advancements in armor and such prior to this but not nearly as well as you are and topics like this make me want to do more accurate things in future myself.
I draw stuff, so I want to be able to draw more authentic stuff.
As for the human element and the changes, yeah, it's intriguing. Seeing the centuries of changes being applied to armor, the way warfare changed along with it and how armors were forced to adapt or improve as well.
Some people look at armor and don't think further about it, but I love how well thought and planned all the bits and parts are, especially with the full plates of late medieval period.
It's the same reason why I've enjoyed Scholagladiatoria's videos, there's so much more into all of it.. and most of it is forgotten nowdays. The 'martial arts' which had been honed and refined for centuries and the feats of engineering and design with armors, castles, you name it.
It's been very educating watching the videos all in all and I hope you keep doing them, even after you run out of subjects 'within hands reach'.
Great video, interesting how perspective is so important in historical studies :) Ever though about making a video about the transition from the cavalry charge to the use of gunpowder? As for many people it is confusing how armor kept evolving alongside the evolution of gunpowder and then all of a sudden armor was drastically reduced, as if overnight.
Consize, precise and totaly accurate. Well done. In my opinion, the best illustration of context I've ver seen. Again, well done.
You constantly astounded me as to how accurate you were in this video! A thousand thanks, brother!
I’m glad someone finally made a video like this..👍👏🏼
Hi there,
I have to clarify some important points.
As an art historian I want to point out that historically the "Renaissance" isn't actually a term - It's more or less an ART-historical term.
It is not the missing link between the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern History. It's just overlapping both of them.
The Early Modern History began immediately when the Late Middle Ages ended (about 1500).
The Renaissance by the way did not last any longer than until the year of 1600.
Roughly spoken:
1400-1470 > Early Renaissance
1470-1530 > High Renaissance
1530-1600 > Late Renaissance (=Mannerism)
It's a mistake to think it lasted any longer because even before 1600 (about 1575) a new era of art has emerged: The Baroque period, which superseded the Renaissance.
Best regards from Vienna, Austria
From what I know most historians use two different dates to denote the start of reneissance more solidly (truth be told all of the listed periods blended into each other as far as culture goes, and in terms of arms and armour early middle ages is more different to late middle ages, than late middle ages are to reneissance).
One of the dates would be re-discovering America by Columbus in 1492. The other line, which I prefer since it beared more significance to Europe was the fall of the Roman Empire. And that's no error, I'm talking about the eastern one, which fell almost 1000 years after the West - 1453. Constantinopol had fallen, and the Ottoman Empire began its rise, being a threat to European order of things even well after the Napoleonic wars.
I had an opportunity to participate in days of knights, and once again I regret not taking it. Good and pertinent information.
This may have been your best video so far, and that's saying something. Really great job, man.
Incredibly interesting topic, something as you said, most people don't think of.
Finally! An indispensable video I was waiting for since... ever!!! Perfectly explained!
What a Magnificent Presentation! So Well Done! Shared!
First channel in a while worth my subscription. Great video.
Great video!! Set a better understanding for me!
Thank you for another great video!
You really present the subject in an academic way, in all your videos.
I realy like the format and its quite enjoyable to watch
Good video, very helpful. A renascence is an explosion of innovation. The Italian Renascence started in the middle ages, in the 1300's. The English Renaissance started a century after the Italian, in the 1400's, and occurred mostly in the Modern Era. The order of historical eras taught to me while I was getting my history degree goes Prehistoric (before written record), Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. THE Renaissance, i.e. the Pan European Renaissance, refers to multiple times and places in Europe towards the end of the Medieval Era and beginning of the Modern. The age of the pike, the Thirty Years War, Napoleon's wars, and other times that all seem really arcane to us now, are all technically in what historians classify as the Modern Era.
Its often useful to think in Generations - usually estimated as 20 years, and Lifetimes - more problematic and less useful but I use 60 years. It gives an idea of how recent events would be in peoples perception.
The start of World War Two is 4 x 20 year Generations ago, my Grandfather fought in WWII and my brother has children that are now the age he was when he fought, so that fits 4 generations nicely.
I personally take the end of the Medieval Period in England to be the start of the Reformation in 1530. Four generations before that was 1450, so the start of the Wars of the Roses were more recent to them than the start of WWII is to us. The US Declaration of Independence is just under 240 years, 12 Generations, ago. So to a Tudor on the eve of the Reformation, wearing the pinnacle of the development of Plate Armour in the Lists, the Wars of Edward I in Wales, where the nobility would have been wearing Coats of Plate, Hauberks and Great Helms would have been as remote as that event is from us today.
The end of the Medieval period is approximately as remote in time from us as the start of the reign of Edward the Confessor was from Thomas Cromwell et al when they began their work.
Side point: American Revolutionary Militia (1776) and British Napoleonic Troops (1803) are only around 30 years apart. Modern western forces are quite likely to meet foreign forces equipped to 1980's standards indeed some 1980s equipment is still in service with western forces, despite the rapid rate of technological progress over the years, so thats not a great comparison.
Excellent. Thank you very much. This is going into the permanent collection.
Well, that gives perspective. It is rather eye-opening. I had never looked at it in this way. Well done, as usual.
Nice video. Essentially from the fall of the Western Roman empire to the fall of Constantinople and the dispersion of classical knowledge from it's refugees to western Europe. While Theodosius is credited with ending the classical period and bringing on the dark ages, it was Justinian who is often thought of as the father of feudalism. The Eastern Roman Empire was fascinating indeed.
Great video. Only thing I would point out is that technology and change has been getting faster. Look at the huge differences between The Great war of 1914 - 1918 to the Second World War 1939 - 1945. So my point is, 20 years development in the Middle ages would see little change compared to 20 years of development today.
Here's my take on the 'rapid tech advancement' piece:
I do admit that technology growth tends to accelerate at more of an exponential pace than a linear pace like time does, however I think perspective is very important here, and first-person experience even more so. What I mean is there was no Industrial or Digital revolution to the 1540 Tudor knight. So from his perspective, technology had progressed only at the pace he had seen, and thus the changes from 1066 to 1540 are pretty impressive to him. From our perspective, where you can watch a video about the knight in 1540 on your touch-screen phone wherever you happen to be, the difference between a mail hauberk and compression lames on the plate harness protecting the inside of the 1540 knight's elbows and knees doesn't seem as proportional a leap in technology, but from the perspective of the knight in 1540, I would argue that it certainly was a pretty big deal. For us to lump him in with the Norman cavalry is to ignore the context of his time.
As you go further back in time, the tech advances are slower, but to the person in that time, they are still riding that ever-increasing wave crest of technological advancement, so when they look back it may seem more accelerated to them than it does to us. In 1,000 years they will probably consider our most advanced automatic rifles on par in technology with a ca. 1380 handgonne because I suspect technology will continue to increase at an exponential pace. To them they may think 'a firearm is just a firearm' as we tend to think a 'polearm is just a polearm.' When we don't use these tools every day, no matter how much we study them, we may never appreciate the advancement from a Dane Axe to a late 15th century Pollaxe as much as Sigismund of Tyrol did. To the person in their own time, the distant past always seems more compressed than the recent past. We should try to appreciate the human element in all of this, which inevitably drives our perception.
Great! You used the picture of Ulich von Lichtenstein from the Manesse - I think he was amazing (and wierd).
TheBeezNeez 81 The old problem with "ie" and "ei", when you are from Austria ... thank you for telling me!
what this has done for me is changed my whole 'what time would you live in if you could''. 1000ad but first go and get that 1500ad knight set up in the picture.
When it comes to Swedish history, I was taught in school that the year when the Middle Ages ended for us was 1523. That's when Gustav Vasa became king and turned Sweden into a protestant nation. Sweden's always a bit behind in progress. For example, when I was taught in school about the industrial revolution, I was told that it reached Sweden a fair amount of time later than the rest of western Europe.
+Savage Beatings Yes, it varied rather dramatically depending on geographical region so for the purposes of this video I had to pick an 'average.' That's why I chose to depict the start of the Renaissance as more of a blurred line centered around 1500, lest we get bogged down in 50 different start dates :)
When you said 2500 ad, it really hit the spot.
All of your videos are outstanding. 12/10.
An excellent point well received.
the endplates of these videos are magnificent
Not new to me, but very well put together.
Each of your clips, great work!
This was great. Now I finally start to get, why people interested in history are so incredibly annoyed by most Hollywood representations ... I mean ... I got it before, but the amercian civil war vs. modern soldier example is priceless!
thank you! learned a lot, please keep making great videos!
A pet peeve of mine is when people say that the renaissance came after the middle ages, even though it actually started during the middle ages. The middle ages are a different category than the renaissance. The renaissance is a cultural epoch like baroque, while the middle ages are the era between classicity and modernity (hence the name middle ages).
Refreshing to see and hear. Thanks for the vid.
Thank you so much for your informative videos... Your channel has been my favourite channel ever since ScholaGladatoia told me about it.
+DevinSmith56 Thank you, and welcome to the channel!
The beginning of the Middle Ages is also a question of opinion, at least in the field of philosophy. Some philosophers consider Boëthius (ca. 480-524, author of The Consolation of Philosophy) to be Late Antiquity.
So right, Man! Great video!
This video is excellent. Good job.
one of the best videos ive seen.
Very good video. I very much liked the way you put the knights into perspective to modern day soldiers in terms of the centuries between them. But one must consider that the difference between the 16th century knight and our modern soldier is much bigger than the difference between the 11th century Norman and the 16th century knight is. That is simply because our world had a huge developement boost since the industrial revolution about 250 years ago. Therefore the 16th century knight might be timewise just as far away from us, as he is from the Norman, but development/equipment wise much closer to the Norman.
I think thats why people always mix those up.
Thanks for the perspective!
Hey Ian, love the videos. you give a great vision into the reality of armour and have definitely dispelled some of my original conceptions that was sooo wrong.
I know this is a bit out of your era of expertise, but im curious as it seems that late renaissance (or from what ive seen), foot troops slowly diminished in how much armour they wore. is this correct? and if it is or isnt, could you shine some light possibly on the topic?
Thanks, keep up the great content!
Cavalry as well. Most people correlate it to the rise of effective gunpowder weapons. Since people have been wearing armor, the priorities are generally head - torso - limbs, in that order. As the armor becomes less effective, we people fall back on those priorities. If the limb armor isn't appreciably protecting you anymore because the weapons can defeat it easily, then why wear it? The cuirass stuck around as they tried to make it capable of withstanding arquebus and musket fire (you could get away with heavier, thicker armor on the torso than the limbs).
Knyght Errant ah okay, i thought it would have been the rise of effective gunpowder firearms that would have caused armour to be less required. I didn't consider cavalry as being used less until mid WW1, thanks for that information!
No problem! I didn't mean that less cavalry was used, but that the armor worn by cavalry also diminished (since you had specified foot troops).
Knyght Errant ahhhh okay, yes sorry good point, ah yeh i suppose makes sense. thanks for clearing it up!
Look forward to seeing more content, thanks :D
Couldn't have put more clearly!
This should be shown in a class tbh, it was a very well done introduction to the study of the middle ages
This coming from someone who has little to no experience with the subject
Great video! Thanks!
It's also important to realize that history in the medieval period existed outside of Europe. Interesting things happened in the middle east, in India, and in China and other parts of east asia in this period.
So the armored guy who's walking in front is a time traveler? Get back in line!
Excellent video! Very important points.
in modern parlance, it seems to me most people use the term “medieval” to mean more roughly between 1000 and 1500, and between the fall of western rome and 1000 to be refefed to as its own period like the dark ages or migration era.
This was extremely interesting thanks for the upload
I enjoyed this. Well done.
I still love the 12th century style, with head-to-toe mail and a surcoat. It's a bit like looking at a late World War II supercharged piston-engined fighter and trying to place it between a jet and a biplane - it was the absolute peak of an older technology's _evolution_ before a new technology brought on a _revolution._ In the case of armor, that was plate. In the case of airplanes, it was jet engines.
Guy in the red jacket represents the modern knight garb!
mail is far older than the high period. It was used by the Roman Republic. It was called Lorica Hamata and was used from the 3rd century BC onwards. It stayed in service even after Lorica Segmentata was introduced.
+ANTHONY CLIFFORD mail is even older than that
Oh, thanks for the knowledge. I didn't know that.
I think the reason most people(and myself, to some degree)tend to squash the medieval period into a shorter timespan is because most people don’t really know very much about the history.
We know that a lot happened between the 1500s and now, and we can list them roughly:
“Knights n stuff, then a plague happened, and then Christopher Columbus and all those guys were sailing around, and then all the awful white people came into the new world, and then there was some musicians in the 1700s, then the American and French Revolution, war of 1812, Civil War, Black people got some rights, stuff went down in Germany, a few years later we got WWI, Soviet Union, Great Depression and jazz, Weimar Republic, Nazi germany, WWII, atomic bombs, Cold War, space race, guys on the moon, Vietnam, computers, internet, phones, 9/11, war on terror, and VR headsets.”
That is a lot of stuff. That’s over 500 years of stuff. Now let’s try that with roughly as much as we know about 1000-1500:
Battle of Hastings, gunpowder, stuff happened and then boom 1500s.
That’s legit all I know without going into details like ‘gothic knights’ or ‘messers’ or anything like that.
We view history linearly, this is unavoidable. The human brain just does that. It’s all a series of events. So when we’re presented with a time period, and we know what the beginning looked like, and the end looked like, but don’t know what events occurred in between. So, we’ll just bunch it up.
I hope this comment made sense. It’s difficult to describe with words.
An addendum to this subject talking about which parts of armor styles DID NOT change much over the thousand years of the "Middle Ages" would be interesting as well. For instance, I think the one universal piece of equipment almost every modern person tends to overlook in armor discussions is the belt, which practically every single type of armor needs to work properly. Or maybe the padded clothing under the armor?
Bravo. Bravo. Nice work. 👍
The plate clad knight was not only possible but known to be more effective in the time of the mail clad knight, so technological capacity is MEANINGLESS without understanding the social situation (even though significant technological advancements did occur). Technology is only as valuable as the mind which apprehends a reason for its use.
The purpose of the knightly class was to protect and administrate the lands of the king, but by the end of the high middle ages, most knights opted to pay the extra taxes attendant upon NOT fighting for the king, which, on the battlefield, gradually replaced the knight with the mercenary. Since this is a violation of the purpose of the knightly class, the only answer for why this happened is sin in some capacity: wicked kings waging useless wars, wicked knights out to destroy their enemies, decadent knights who'd rather not have their feasts interrupted, etc. Plate armor, in other words, became the necessary costume for a wicked age.
At 6:51 we've got that awesome picture of all the different re-enactors lined up chronologically in their armours; can anyone shed some light on what the guy in mail (fourth from the right) with a full-facial helm and something reminiscent of a skeggox is supposed to represent? I'd naturally have assumed that he'd represent an early medieval figure going by the hauberk and the wyningas, though I'm not sure what the hell is helm is supposed to be.
+Laurence Withey Irish Gallowglass, and the guy to the right of him in the yellow is his Kern.
I guess I’m not the only one who’s head explodes at renaissance faires.
Excellent video
Great video!
Your videos are very informative, thank you.