?? Nic jen že nick Wahorse, který používám asi od roku 2008 je teď všude zabraný, protože lidi objevili WarhorseStudio a začala se ta přezdívka až moc množit... Ale není třeba nikomu nadávat...
Funny thing is, your video left off roughly where my knowledge picks up. After the advent of the arquebus, armor began largely retracing it's steps, reverting from full plate to cuirass/shoulders/greaves in the 1500s, then just a cuirass in the 1600s. By the late 1700s, armor had reduced to leather pieces integrated into uniforms, with reinforced boots and gloves. It then all but disappeared aside from helms until the early-mid 1900s with the adoption of heavy leather jackets by aircraft pilots, then flak vests in the 1960s. In the late 1900s, we regressed all the way back to padded cloth, except the fabric being used was Kevlar. This brings us to the 1990s, when we discovered the joys of ceramic, and turned our modern doublets into cuirass again, and then the early 2000s, when the peak of mass-produced armor tech was ablative ceramic scale mail over padded kevlar cloth. If you read this far, like or respond, and I'll do sufficient research to turn it into an actual response video.
First world war, chain mail and plate armour was used quite extensively, in fact it has never really fallen out of fashion, it was used in cabinet warfare, just as time went on and standing armies got larger the cost of equipping all soldiers with it became too high so these individuals were required to buy their own and if not go without. Modern combat armour is just this medieval tech using modern materials
You're a bit wrong on the flak vest it started being issued in WW2 to stop artillery shrapnel and would be improved in the 1950s before Vietnam to be able to withstand small caliber pistol rounds.
It would be really interesting to see a video on this, especially if you can cover the "Why"'s of the different armoring choices, cuz I seriously have no idea why platemail fell out of fashion in militaries (I have my guesses but I'd rather have facts personally x3), and that's only one of many odd choices that confuse me, so a video that could cover that would be golden by my account!
@@revbladez5773 You might also say that developments in medicine, surgery and combat first aid have affected this because modern soldiers are able to wear only enough armour to prevent lethal hits because it is likely (although of course far from certain) that hits to their extremities can be made less than lethal via the rapid application of combat first aid e.g. tourniquets and rapid wound sealants, and swift expedition to a location where life saving medicine and surgery can be applied. Now all this probably goes out the window in a peer conflict
I was reading a book originally published in early Victorian times, they beleived knights had to be lifted with hoists onto their horses bc of the weight of the armour. Lol
Perhaps the flat top helm design was a result of frontal strikes being more common than overhead strikes, so the protection of the forehead and the brow was seen as more paramount than the risk of getting hit with a downward swing. Also, considering that the majority of flat top depictions show men on horseback, perhaps them being usually mounted meant that overhead strikes on them were a lot more difficult to achieve, so they choose a stronger frontal structure instead.
It was fortunate then, that knights weren't expected to play an important role in sieges on the ground, as a flat top helm would suffer horridly against arrows, bolts, and rocks being dropped on you from above
"that knights weren't expected to play an important role in sieges on the ground" - Well, they actually kinda were, there are swarms of sources describing them as being part of siege assaults, which is a good point on your side nonetheless, as a flat top helm would indeed be a bad design for anyone not looking up the entire time lol.
AFAIK greathelmets were used against archers. If you closed in, you ditched the helmet, so that you can see and hear your enemies better. It allowed better breathing too. These helmets would NEVER be used by infantery. Thus they didn't need to fear rocks dropped on their flat helmets, not getting hammered there...
Greathelms were definitely used in combat, the protection outweighs limited visibility as you are most likely fighting in formation so you only need to see what is right in front of you. Although, some did definitely ditch them and switch to lighter and more open helms once they engaged in melee.
@Romano Coombs lmao France supported the Norman's because they were frightened of them atleast Britain tried to drive foreigners out to the last man. Rule brittania
Metatron, Warhorse Studios, the guys that are making Kingdom Come: Deliverance, have just tweeted this video. They most have loved it to have done that
Honestly got a war flashback when Friede's song started playing haha, that boss... it still haunts my dreams... never do Ariandel before the major bosses...
Can you do a video on Byzantine armor from 284 - 1453? I've seen a few examples of Byzantine armor, and it seems really similar to armors like the Lorica Segmentata, but I've also seen Byzantine mail, and armors that look similar to ones I've seen from the Middle East, so I think it would make a really interesting video to show all the different styles and influences.
@@fernothemouse Roman Empire FTFY Imperium Romanum/Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων There is no starting date for Byzantine Empire, since officially no such thing was ever established. So to be pedantic, what he clearly wants is a video on imperial Roman armor from late 200s to mid 1453.
Why are the 2 horses hugging each other? are they trying to console each other?Or are they brothers who were split between two brothers that hate each other?
Two points,. 1) The flat topped helmet seems more of a fashion choice to me than practical. When facing indirect arrow fire (IE arrows fired into the air rather than directly at soldiers and therefore meant to deliver a volley of arrows that are falling down on them from above) a conical helmet is much superior when it comes to deflecting arrows, something a flat topped helmet cannot do. I'm not surprised that the flat topped helmet was fairly short lived as a result and that most helmets were conical going forward. 2) I always found it interesting that gunpowder had made it's way to Europe by the late 14th century, just as full plate was being developed. Meaning the reign of the iconic full plated knight lasted less than a century (late 14th through the mid 15th) before being made obsolete by increasingly effective firearms.
I would imagine that the flat topped helms would be easier to make, making them cheaper and so would be the go-to for your average footman. Maybe that's why they were so prevalent when the conical shape is better at deflecting blows.
A moment of silence as we remember the poor sop who was the first to have his neck snapped by his frog helm. (Thus causing the smiths to decide "Hey, let's attach that to the breastplate so it doesn't happen again!") 20:52
I think while the exterior seems familiar, the greater difference might lie in the interior design. I could be uninformed but medieval armor design beyond just the plate seems more advanced and provided better protection. I've never heard of padding, layered protection, and suspended helmets in Roman armor. Could be wrong. And even medieval plate seems more complex in the way it comes together, better design. Medieval metallurgy would be much better as well. One reason weapons evolved so much, new capabilities and new tools needed to counter advances in armor.
That's what a dark age is. It's the loss of technology and knowledge. Took the Germanics a thousand years to pick up where the Latins left off. This upcoming dark age, I expect will last thousand-S- of years. It may be three thousand years before the next civilization can once again look at naked women on only fans via a cell phone, because this time... this time we have nukes. Buckle up kiddos, it's gonna be a wild ride! (luckily you wont live thru it)
The_JoJo_Reference I guess I'm more interested in the evolution of the shield alongside armor, and wondering if two handed weapons or any form of dual wielding was used before the invention of full plate, since especially some of the later armors seemed complete on their own and would provide enough protection without a shield.
It's a nice change to hear someone be specific of what era theyre talking about. So many utube channels say "medieval " this or that happened.. as if medieval lasted 10 years or something.. Medieval covers a few hundred years.. SHADIVERSITY take notice ..
Common media nerd misconception (video games, fantasy novels, etc) is that greaves are the full plate legging armor which is not the case. Greaves are only shin armor. Poleyn are knee guards. Cuisses are thigh armor. Its the same thing when people say "plate-mail" plate-mail is not a real thing for all intents and purposes. Plate and mail are separate materials. You may think this distinction is nitpicky, but it's important to have specific information and verbiage when talking about facts or history.
Brigandine and chainmail+gambeson(or other type of thick cloth) is the coolest armour ever...also the Norse helmets with the nasal masks-the coolest looking ever.
I'm always curious, medieval time, where most army are make up peasant army & armour knights, where peasant soldiers are poor, they wear what they had, while the knights can own armour with various design & style to suit their body size and high, So with no standard outfit/uniform, how those army could tell which soldiers are friends or foes ? besides flag and language. all i know is, that the British use red coat as theirs standard uniforms, allow General recognize which soldiers is who.
Telsion for ancient Greek, i had theories how those army could tell which soldiers is friends or foes, based on the drawing symbol on their shield, or the formations, the incoming soldiers are foes, while the pushing army from rear are friends...this is just a theories
seng create The use of untrained levies would, of course, vary by region and time period. In some cases, a knight would bring along an entire retinue of men at arms, in others, they would bring along the local peasantry. In any case, it doesn't make sense to bring along your source of income (the workforce on your land) without looking after them. So, they might provide outdated armor for the peasants, possibly just a padded jack. As for identification, it could be anything from a bit of cloth tied around the arm, to a tabard with the lord's sigil. But this all depends on time and place.
seng create first of all in medieval times its a complete different thing then we as modern people think!, uniforms werent widely spread at this time! so one thing that they did is each 'regiment' or company or contigent of troops depending on where they were recruited had most likely their so called colours so for example you had a regiment of infantry soldiers from lets say wessex! they would have a standard bearer which job would be to carry the colours of that "regiment" or company or whatever! so it was mostly done with banners and colours which is why banners were so important back then! also to understand this way you have to know that battle tactics at this time were not about charging and spreading eachother like in hollywood were they leave formation and end up in a mixed cluster of small duels!!! this never happend because of many other reasons but one reason is that that way you distuinguish friend or foe and the whole concept of banners losses its value if everyone on impact just leaves the bannerman behind dispurses in a cluster of random melee! this why actual medieval battle tactics were you had your line and group you would stick to that group as much as possible! hence having a man with a huge banner in the middle so you know where approximetly where your group is and if happen to accidently get too far of your group you would look for the banner and get in line again! formations were so important because formations were designed not to break! if formation breaks you loose because people dont know who is who, they loose the group so they usually run away! very important formation not to break also for this topic of knowing who is who!
I dunno what they're called but i think those are extensions of the saddles to help keep the rider on and oriented. They aren't hugging, they're grappling. It's a little known fact that horses invented wrestling.
I'm trying to get into armoring and based on my (admittedly not large) experience I think the flat tops were just easier to make and thus cheaper, I might be wrong but that's my guess
Very funny how some armor characteristics from the Greco-Roman world that were lost get slowly readopted over time like, grieves, fully encased helmets, neck guards
Thank you. In my next video, which should come out between today and tomorrow, There Is a section where I review this Evolution again, but with a lot more iconography. Stay tuned :)
Hi Metatron! It would be pretty interesting a video on horse armour through history. But probably you already thought about that :D Great explanation ad always. Ciao from Bari.
I'm thinking, yes. You have to remember, by the time that Rome fell they had gone back to wearing mail and had been wearing mail for centuries. So given that, I'd day that it's pretty reasonable to believe the knowledge of how to make steel plates was largely forgotten.
Riceball01 They were still making swords and spear tips, which are metal plates squeezed and sharpened at the edges, so I doubt they forgot how to make them. Armor was very affected by fashion, so I think it just was fashionable to have only mail (just like the flat top helm).
madichelp0 And mail was a lot more comfortable and easily maintained than a bunch of overlapping plates. You can see that almost all of the soldiers fighting on campaign preferred mail armor, given that a monument Adamklissi shows almost all of the Roman legionaries in mail. Keep in mind that this monument was built by soldiers, and was built at roughly the same time as Trajan's Column.
Sugarloaf is the round shape given to great helmets as seen here deepeeka.in/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/0/h015_2.jpg
It was such a battle between the growth of Weaponry vs armor. With every new upgrade in weaponry there has to be an upgrade in armor to counter it. It was an arms race between blacksmiths on who made the better invention. The science behind the two is amazing and full of knowledge with some being lost through the strongest weapon of all, time. Great video subject and once again full of amazing details.
A wonderful video, I loved that you pointed out that fashion had a lot to do with the development of the armour, as knights would often wear unpractical equipment just for fashions sake. Various head decorations spring to mind. Or later, as the winged Hussars wore the wings purely for the aesthetic purposes.
In actuality they mostly didn't wear wings. Rarely, though it was done, was a single wing attached to the back of the horse worn. The misconception comes from around 19th century when Polish nationalism and clamour for independence gained a lot of ground. Re-emphasised by writers and painters of the period, it's mostly a myth. I should add that, at the very end of Hussars' existence, when they were jokingly called "Funeral Guard" they apparently did wear wings, but that was entirely outside of combat.
Coat of plates! My favorite type of medieval armor! Yaaaay! Also, now I want a full harness of Milanese plate in Kingdom Come Deliverance. I'm pretty damn sure you can get one. You gave that game one hell review! I enjoy all of you videos. Man you make me *even more* excited for medieval warfare knowledge!
Actually, they just made armors thicker to withstand bullets, and in exchange there were more gaps uncovered so that weight would not be a big issue. It was common until the late 17th century.
You forgot to mention that the great helmet was preceded by the 'mediocre helmet' and the 'so-and-so helmet' before that. It was succeeded by the 'amazing helmet' and later the 'fabulous helmet'. The ultimate head protection was the 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious helmet'.
Awesome video. It would be a good idea to make a video about the renaissance armors, in specific the half armors of the Landsknechts and the swiss mercenaries!
I loved this video so much because it showed how armor dramatically changed from full chain to full plate from the 11th century to 15th century. Well done there and thank you so much! I think that armor was useless by 1500 because they already had guns and other advanced weaponry which replaced the medieval ones.
Methinks a "rider's split" was not just created in the hauberk for the knight to mount his horse. It was also pretty handy for going to the bathroom I bet.
Greetings, noble one! I have a question to Metatron, the linguist. It is completely unrelated to this video, please excuse. Why do so many english speakers (including you in this video) say eK cetera when the latin expression is actually eT cetera? I have heard this consistently from many native english speakers and it does not seem to be an actual mistake, though it is kind of strange to hear for a german speaker. We use this expression a lot - in the form of eT cetera...
hans wurst It depends on where in the US or UK you're in. Some places, they say the "t". Others form the t and c into a "ck" sound. I believe the main reason why this is the case is that t and c are hard to pronounce one after the other, and so English simplifies it to a "ck" sound.
Hello fellow noble one, I think the reason many English speakers pronounce it this way is because it's easier to pronounce. The linguistic term is a "dissimilation rule" which basically means that one of two similar adjacent sounds are changed in such a way so they are more different and therefore easier to pronounce. For example: Sixth may be pronounced as sikst or fifth as fift to make it easier. eksetera is easier to say. Another English mangling you might hear is "et cetra". It is also common in English to omit the unstressed syllable in three syllable words like mystery and probably. In German how can you hear the difference between Bund and bunt? A second explanation may be that many words begin with the prefix /eks/ in English like exercise, exit, exemplary, etc. So it's a sound we are used to. A final reason may be that etc is often misspelled as ect but i'm not convinced on this one. Finally a question for you, it's my understanding that Germans often use the phrase „und so weiter“, is there any major difference between usw. and etc.?
Actually (I have to say that I didn't put much attention to how he pronounced it) I suppose it's also relevant that in italian "et cetera" has evolved into "eccetera" nowadays, so he may well have pronounced it in italian, maybe even without realizing it (just my 2 cent, from an italian like him) ;)
Hi Metatron, hi all, quick question for you or anyone who can help me. I saw you included several modern illustrations depicting men in their armour, and some weapons. The images have white backgrounds and little black numbers next to each piece depicted. Do you know which book/resource these illustrations come from? I didn't see it mentioned in the description and I'm thinking I'd like to buy it, if it's in a book.
I'm rather late to the video and have no idea if you'll even see this; but - From what you've said, the order of plate/not mail existence is: Head > Arms and Legs, and lastly the body? I know there were plates put in here and there, and then the Greek muscle armour and so on, but an actual breastplate came after the development of partial/full encasement armour for the legs and arms?
Very interesting video. I also find it helpful for designing armor for a fantasy story, here's how I would use them for my story. (Based on the thumbnail) 1100: Light Infantry and City Guards 1250: The King's Guard 1330: Common Knights 1400: Elite Knights 1450: King's Armor and Tournament Armor Thanks very much for the Education!
Why did they use 3/4 sleaves? It does not strike me that it would save that much resources compared to the cost of the rest of the mail, especially when you add in the cost of sheild, helmet, and horse.
@@celticperspective5183 Fair enough. Mobilty vs armour protection is part of the equation still having to be assessed with modern armour (both personal and vehicular).
@@ostrowulf lol I didn't realise I answered a question from 4 years ago, but yeah I think that they would have prioritised mobility over protection especially as the larger shields would have made arm protection practically redundant
@@celticperspective5183 All good, I do it sometimes too. Took me a minute to figure out the refrence point of what my comment was even reffering to though. But yeah, having a sheild makes the calculation a little different as to if you want to bother wearing armour on your forearm. I mean, Romans were relatively (for their time) heavily armoured, with not a lot on the arms with their masive sheilds. The same logic applying later on with also relatively large sheilds.
Question: While leather as a WHOLE armor was nonexsistent (cause from what I know learned to make armor seen in fantasy alot of cows or what have you would have to be slaughtered and given the fact cows were important for things other than meat and leather) it was still used as straps and belts and so on. So my question to you is. how really tough was this leather. As you stated at the last minute of your episode the Italians used that singular strap for hundreds of years THEREFORE it can be assumed it can take the blow of a sharp blade. the question is...could it? and if so would that mean that leather was tougher back then than it is now?
The armor at 19:42 is not a Milanese one. it is in fact a armor of the so called Schott-Sonneberg Style, a early 16 century armor which preceded the Maximilian type armor. You can recognize it for example by the breastplate without the leather strap, which would be essential for a milanese style armor ;)
Why do some medieval paintings look so poorly drawn? I mean perhaps they were made by someone important but they look as if they were drawn by a child at the time. The knights in the 11th century image are very disproportionate, what is the reason behind that? Perhaps it can be a next video idea :)
Techniques for quality art were NOT well propogated to most places. Hell, to my understanding, literacy barely even was to those outside of the church and nobility, and writing/reading was far more important than good art to people of the time. Still it is really odd just how bad most medieval european art was xD
Well, as someone who has painted early medieval art, such as illuminated manuscripts, standard manuscript art (such as the Maciejowski Bible style), and "Byzantine" or Eastern Orthodox iconography, I must say that there are some running themes in the artwork and it's not as easy as it first appears. Although, I do agree that some art looks incredibly odd and sloppy compared to others. That might be due to time limits and the fact that many of these images are much smaller than you might think. But even I, before recreating these images, believed they were merely childish and easy to do with very little effort. I have quite the different opinion about them now. :)
It was the popular style back then. Being realistic was not a large concern, getting the point across and looking flashy (To a person of the time) was all that mattered.
The Great Helm messes with your field of vision and breathing a lot, and can be vulnerable to blunt impact force traveling vertically on top of the helmet, especially if the top is not rounded. The end result is a helmet that will totally give you a bit of cheer and respect among your company or your friends, and perhaps save your life if you find yourself surrounded by blokes whacking at your head with swords (which is not exactly a priority goal for anyone not wanting to die on a battlefield), but also a helmet that you won't willingly put on before the battle. This is simply because it will pretty much be really unbearable to wear for a long period of time, no matter how manly and rugged you may be with dealing with uncomfortable conditions. In addition to that, it can be of poor quality, since it's so popular among the fans of the crusades and therefore mass-produced by below average smiths today. So if you end up rocking a Great Helm onto your fictitious battlefield or a re-enactment, make sure you know the disadvantages of it, and that it's not made of recycled soda cans in China :)
*Sallet + Bevor* OR *Bellows Face Sallet*, look it up if you haven't heard of this *Sallet variant.* It's my favorite helmet, but I tie it with the Standard *Sallet + Bevor* combo.
I suppose that's a good reason but I've always struggled to see why. The whole idea of Knights came from France around the age of Charlemagne, and it's not like they were awful, they beat back the English in the hundred years war and spear-headed the crusades.
I’ve always loved the 1400’s sectioned light armor Plates fitted to the body that allow for more range of movement with more armor on places like the belly, legs and arms, with less and less as we get to the head has also been an aesthetic I love a lot when it comes to armor- definitely not efficient in the real world, but it still looks incredible (if looking to fashion alone)
a nice Video, I do have an few critics though. You said that wehn you see a Kettle Helmet you can immediately to ca.1200, but this Type of Helmet was common 'till the End of the 15th Century, evendoe, according to the Artwork, it was more Common by the Common Soldier then by Nights. Secondly the Visby style Gauntlets date to the Battle of Visby 1361, and even though they might have been in use earlier by the Knightly Class, I don't know of any Sources that would indicate a Use in the Late 13th Century.
Hello and thank you for watching. It is a common mistake to consider the armour found at Visby as contemporary to the date of the battle but that's a huge mistake completely debunked by the best of historians. The armour in question, found in the mass graves, belonged to the Gutnish country yeomen, peasants who did not wear the best armour of the time, but instead wore very old fashoned armour, which is what we see for instance in the visby gauntlet which needs to be dated several decades back in time to the time I have dated it in this video. For the Kettle helmet I think it goes without say that when I mention the date of the development of a certain helmet that helmet did not automatically and immediatelly go out of fashion and it will be used for several decade together with other kinds of helmets. What I ment to say was that if you see a kettle hat it's atleast a late 12th century early 13th century helmet. I can assure you a lot of thought and double and triple checking went into the making of this video and the information I share on it.
Hello! Thank you so much for your Answer! I'm sure that you spend lots of Time researching for your Videos, and I appreciate that, and your Channel is one of my Favorite ones on RUclips. I know that the Gauntlets found in Visby where probably not common around 1360, and I also said that in my original Comment, I just don't know of any Sources for them being in use as early as the 13th C. But how far you should date them back is probably pretty vage, I personally would date them to around 1330. According to the Kettle Helmet, I must have understood you wrong, I thot you ment that they where just in use around 1200. Sorry for that. Thanks ones again, Singa
Who exactly are these so-called "best of historians"? On what basis do you conclude with such a bombastic term? Sorry, I really like the effort and quality of these videos, but I'm disappointed in the amount of sources listed (AKA _none_ ) and as such I regret to tell you that you lose almost all credibility. I know you're not inventing stuff for the gist of it, not at all, but seriously. I don't know if you hate academic stuff, but you got to at least have _some_ sources in description, or refrain from presenting it as objective fact overall.. Best regards
We all know that most of us would be peasents wearing cheap padded or leather armor if we lived backe then. We like to watch this kind of video for the same reason welike to watch reviews of mclarens and lamborghinis: what else could we do?
Why don't you cover the "armor vs muskets" topic? It's such a stupid idea that guns ended the age of body armor. No FUCKING musket could go through knight's armor. Musket ball bullets had low muzzle velocity and stood no chance against armour plate. Then there were mail and gambeson which ALSO were resistive as hell.
Guns did not end the age of armor. Like you said, musket balls cannot punch through plate armor, because of how well crafted they were. But keep in mind that plate armor made it up to the 1870s, and foward. What really ended armor in my opinion was mass production and modern military tactics. (By modern i mean something more advance than mere Pike&Shot).
Firearms didn't necessarily end the age of body armor; it caused the demise of full-suit style armor. Armor of various forms, such as plate, lamellar, and even paper armor can be effective against firearms. But it became quite unwieldy and cost ineffective to attempt in producing and wearing full-suit of armor that was able to resist bullets completely. Rather, people started investing their resources on other aspects, such as mobility and versatility - rather than focusing mostly on defensive capabilities. A good contrast would be the Curiassiers and Hussars of early modern warfare to a 15th century knight. And although a bullet may not be able to penetrate a knight's armor, it will still deliver a considerable concussive blow that may seriously injure or kill the opponent.
Are you sure? Trebuchets weren't that powerfull either. And the really large siege-cannons could fire two or three balls a day(But those would have been around 500kg and up).
Ok, I only knew that the largest bombards could only shoot very seldom. But generally the damage a stone-ball can do against a stone wall is very limited. Gundpowder definitley would have made a difference at undermining or close range attacks against castles.
LOVE THE VIDEO!!!!!!!. verry interesting! i have a question. can you make a video in this theme about japanese OR chinese armour?????????? that whould by very intressting. greetings from holland
If I'm nost mistaken, men at arms refers to knights and possibly soldiers of the time in general; it does not refer to those people in a Medieval/Rennaisance army who weren't knights or nobles.
6:20 when you're fighting to the death but your horses were friends back in high school
6:23 When you are proud Teutonic Order Brother yet with ass beaten by the Poloniae Regis noble.
@@HanSolo__ when you're a polish kid and your inferiority complex dominates your whole life
@Sam never saw a horse fight?
@@zurgesmiecal its a joke😤
@@jacobb751 and I asked a question
Wonderful video Metatron. Nicely done.
Warhorse Studios
OMG, HI! :D
*****
Umm... Okay?
You have steal my nick name... REVENGE...VENDETA...POMSTA!!!
?? Nic jen že nick Wahorse, který používám asi od roku 2008 je teď všude zabraný, protože lidi objevili WarhorseStudio a začala se ta přezdívka až moc množit... Ale není třeba nikomu nadávat...
I'm glad to hear that from you :D thanks!
dark souls music? here, have a like
Praise the sun brothers
nice, I thought I was imagining that
@@danieldebod2663 we shall now praise it
Where? On "15th Century"?
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски 14th and 15 th
Funny thing is, your video left off roughly where my knowledge picks up. After the advent of the arquebus, armor began largely retracing it's steps, reverting from full plate to cuirass/shoulders/greaves in the 1500s, then just a cuirass in the 1600s. By the late 1700s, armor had reduced to leather pieces integrated into uniforms, with reinforced boots and gloves. It then all but disappeared aside from helms until the early-mid 1900s with the adoption of heavy leather jackets by aircraft pilots, then flak vests in the 1960s. In the late 1900s, we regressed all the way back to padded cloth, except the fabric being used was Kevlar. This brings us to the 1990s, when we discovered the joys of ceramic, and turned our modern doublets into cuirass again, and then the early 2000s, when the peak of mass-produced armor tech was ablative ceramic scale mail over padded kevlar cloth.
If you read this far, like or respond, and I'll do sufficient research to turn it into an actual response video.
So, the next logical step would be a ceramical full plate... Oh, hi there, space marines!
First world war, chain mail and plate armour was used quite extensively, in fact it has never really fallen out of fashion, it was used in cabinet warfare, just as time went on and standing armies got larger the cost of equipping all soldiers with it became too high so these individuals were required to buy their own and if not go without. Modern combat armour is just this medieval tech using modern materials
you need powered Endoskeletons for that and it will skip right from Ceramic Curiass to Gothic Balistic Combat plate
You're a bit wrong on the flak vest it started being issued in WW2 to stop artillery shrapnel and would be improved in the 1950s before Vietnam to be able to withstand small caliber pistol rounds.
It would be really interesting to see a video on this, especially if you can cover the "Why"'s of the different armoring choices, cuz I seriously have no idea why platemail fell out of fashion in militaries (I have my guesses but I'd rather have facts personally x3), and that's only one of many odd choices that confuse me, so a video that could cover that would be golden by my account!
0:55 11th century
2:27 12th century
4:57 13th century
9:40 14th century
15:37 15th century
Thanks
Tha tha tha tha tha anks anks anks anks anks
Thank you 😘
No 16th and 17th 😢
Why would you skip
Sucks that right when armor started looking really cool guns were invented.
Guns were already around at the time. Armour got cooler BECAUSE it had to stop musket shots. So it's more the other way around.
sucks that guns were invented
@@revbladez5773 You might also say that developments in medicine, surgery and combat first aid have affected this because modern soldiers are able to wear only enough armour to prevent lethal hits because it is likely (although of course far from certain) that hits to their extremities can be made less than lethal via the rapid application of combat first aid e.g. tourniquets and rapid wound sealants, and swift expedition to a location where life saving medicine and surgery can be applied. Now all this probably goes out the window in a peer conflict
I disagree, 11th 12th century Crusader armor looks really awesome..
colonial
era uniforms are some of the drippiest though
It's interesting how we tend to think of Knights as having full plate armor, but throughout most of the middle ages that simply wasn't the case.
Yeah, depictions of Richard the Lionheart in full plate- like, what?!?
as much as I love full plate armor, the crusade era armor just looks glorious
@@erojerisiz1571 I absolutely concur!
To me, when someone mentions middle ages, then i immediately
think of 11-12 century, and not anything else.
i suppose that is why those centuries were referred to as the high middle ages
I was reading a book originally published in early Victorian times, they beleived knights had to be lifted with hoists onto their horses bc of the weight of the armour.
Lol
but the real question: could you wear a 14th century greathelm over a 12th century greathelm? And would you call that a Greater helm?
And then cover your throat with a Frogmouth!
Lindybeige, is that you?
It's like with wearing multiple condoms, the more the better.
🤔
It's helm-ception
Perhaps the flat top helm design was a result of frontal strikes being more common than overhead strikes, so the protection of the forehead and the brow was seen as more paramount than the risk of getting hit with a downward swing.
Also, considering that the majority of flat top depictions show men on horseback, perhaps them being usually mounted meant that overhead strikes on them were a lot more difficult to achieve, so they choose a stronger frontal structure instead.
Great points
It was fortunate then, that knights weren't expected to play an important role in sieges on the ground, as a flat top helm would suffer horridly against arrows, bolts, and rocks being dropped on you from above
"that knights weren't expected to play an important role in sieges on the ground" - Well, they actually kinda were, there are swarms of sources describing them as being part of siege assaults, which is a good point on your side nonetheless, as a flat top helm would indeed be a bad design for anyone not looking up the entire time lol.
AFAIK greathelmets were used against archers. If you closed in, you ditched the helmet, so that you can see and hear your enemies better. It allowed better breathing too. These helmets would NEVER be used by infantery. Thus they didn't need to fear rocks dropped on their flat helmets, not getting hammered there...
Greathelms were definitely used in combat, the protection outweighs limited visibility as you are most likely fighting in formation so you only need to see what is right in front of you. Although, some did definitely ditch them and switch to lighter and more open helms once they engaged in melee.
GB: Armour
USA: Armor
GB: Honour
USA: Honor
GB: "Hey what's the deal America?"
USA: "I'm getting rid of U"
Nerobyrne yo are absolutely on to something.
U is useless anyway so yeah.
Colour, color
@Romano Coombs lmao France supported the Norman's because they were frightened of them atleast Britain tried to drive foreigners out to the last man. Rule brittania
Ahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!
Did not see that coming.
Hey it's 4:00 AM.
Time to learn about the history of knights!
Hey it's been 2 years.
Time to reply to this comment!
Same dude
Dude that’s literally exactly when I started watching this XD
hitting too close to home
*3 years later at 4 am*
Yes I agree with you!
Metatron, Warhorse Studios, the guys that are making Kingdom Come: Deliverance, have just tweeted this video. They most have loved it to have done that
Carlos Albin I hope he sees your commentary, that game is definetely what he and us would be more hyped about.
This is great if you want to write fantasy with a world that has some progress over time.
Im here for that purpuse indeed :V
That's exactly what I'm doing lol
Those Deus Ex themes though.
Dark souls themes too
"Soon the Fire shall fade and only dark will remain" - Adam Jensen
Errol Tan Smh... *I never asked for this*
Errol Tan Seeing this makes me realize Dark Souls doesn't fuck around.
This video reminded me that I've spent over 500 hours on dark souls 3 (I got GUD)
Honestly got a war flashback when Friede's song started playing haha, that boss... it still haunts my dreams... never do Ariandel before the major bosses...
Can you do a video on Byzantine armor from 284 - 1453? I've seen a few examples of Byzantine armor, and it seems really similar to armors like the Lorica Segmentata, but I've also seen Byzantine mail, and armors that look similar to ones I've seen from the Middle East, so I think it would make a really interesting video to show all the different styles and influences.
SpadaccinoLuciano they tended to use lamellar and chain mail.
Theres no Byzantine empire at 285
Byzantine Empire existed from 330 to 1453 CE.
@@fernothemouse AD*
@@fernothemouse Roman Empire FTFY
Imperium Romanum/Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων
There is no starting date for Byzantine Empire, since officially no such thing was ever established.
So to be pedantic, what he clearly wants is a video on imperial Roman armor from late 200s to mid 1453.
You used ds3 music. When are you going to continue your review of DS armor? Or is that series over?
came for this comment
I love the teachers attitude: "You will learn which armour set belongs to which century." Great work here.
Why are the 2 horses hugging each other? are they trying to console each other?Or are they brothers who were split between two brothers that hate each other?
It's a sarcastic hug, like when you say "Ooooooooh I'm so happy for you!", but in your head you are really thinking "What an uppity bitch."
The ernest answer (if interested :D ) is, that the horses are fighting for themselves. Destriers (medieval warhorses) were trained to fight.
Blank- blade Nice
Timestamp?
Brothers from a other mother
Two points,.
1) The flat topped helmet seems more of a fashion choice to me than practical. When facing indirect arrow fire (IE arrows fired into the air rather than directly at soldiers and therefore meant to deliver a volley of arrows that are falling down on them from above) a conical helmet is much superior when it comes to deflecting arrows, something a flat topped helmet cannot do. I'm not surprised that the flat topped helmet was fairly short lived as a result and that most helmets were conical going forward.
2) I always found it interesting that gunpowder had made it's way to Europe by the late 14th century, just as full plate was being developed. Meaning the reign of the iconic full plated knight lasted less than a century (late 14th through the mid 15th) before being made obsolete by increasingly effective firearms.
I would imagine that the flat topped helms would be easier to make, making them cheaper and so would be the go-to for your average footman. Maybe that's why they were so prevalent when the conical shape is better at deflecting blows.
@@Liam_The_Great That could be. I assumed it was a fashion choice but when it comes to things like this we're all guessing
A moment of silence as we remember the poor sop who was the first to have his neck snapped by his frog helm. (Thus causing the smiths to decide "Hey, let's attach that to the breastplate so it doesn't happen again!") 20:52
I really don't understand how did they breathe in that thing 😅
its interesting how the romans made their first 'plate' armors centuries before the first experiments with them in the medieval ages
I was just thinking about how much of this was just reinvention of what already existed 1000 years prior
medievel technology quickly outpaced and overtook anything the romans made
I think while the exterior seems familiar, the greater difference might lie in the interior design. I could be uninformed but medieval armor design beyond just the plate seems more advanced and provided better protection. I've never heard of padding, layered protection, and suspended helmets in Roman armor. Could be wrong. And even medieval plate seems more complex in the way it comes together, better design. Medieval metallurgy would be much better as well. One reason weapons evolved so much, new capabilities and new tools needed to counter advances in armor.
That's what a dark age is. It's the loss of technology and knowledge. Took the Germanics a thousand years to pick up where the Latins left off.
This upcoming dark age, I expect will last thousand-S- of years. It may be three thousand years before the next civilization can once again look at naked women on only fans via a cell phone, because this time... this time we have nukes.
Buckle up kiddos, it's gonna be a wild ride! (luckily you wont live thru it)
@@hohenzollern6025 no it didn't, lmao
How to date a knight? That would make a great video title :)
Ask him if he wants a one knight stand
@@paulbrule5897 badumpts
It depends. Do you have a sister?
It'll be a bore. The first half of the date he'll talk about himself, the second half he'll talk about his armor.
@Allen Rider The stay for the second half of the date! Lol.
I know by the 14th century, the shield had dropped mostly out of use. How and when did this happen? Could be a cool idea for a video.
When the Full Plate armor was worn, those soldiers abandoned the shield. So the real question is, when was plate armor first used in battle?
The_JoJo_Reference I guess I'm more interested in the evolution of the shield alongside armor, and wondering if two handed weapons or any form of dual wielding was used before the invention of full plate, since especially some of the later armors seemed complete on their own and would provide enough protection without a shield.
Adam Wolfe unlike plate most armors were still unable to really protect against blunt damage, so probably that's why
By the 15th century
yes but the more important question is
what about dragons?
I think you'd need to make some modifications to the armor...
it's a joke from Shardivsty
Enchant your bloody armor. If dragons exist, the magic behind them does too.
MACHICOLATIONS!!!
A true man of culture!
I notice that a lot of time the 500-1000 years are "outside of medieval times. Most of the events and stuff arent cover in games or deal in any sense
Dark souls 3 soundtrack...Good choice
It's a nice change to hear someone be specific of what era theyre talking about.
So many utube channels say "medieval " this or that happened.. as if medieval lasted 10 years or something..
Medieval covers a few hundred years..
SHADIVERSITY
take notice ..
Exactly. It covers about 1000 years of history
You can't really blame him time flows differently in Australia
@@caveman2787 lol
Sleep half a hour more or watch a video about knights
Shiet, i know what im picking
Common media nerd misconception (video games, fantasy novels, etc) is that greaves are the full plate legging armor which is not the case. Greaves are only shin armor. Poleyn are knee guards. Cuisses are thigh armor. Its the same thing when people say "plate-mail" plate-mail is not a real thing for all intents and purposes. Plate and mail are separate materials. You may think this distinction is nitpicky, but it's important to have specific information and verbiage when talking about facts or history.
I hear the Dark Souls 3 soundtrack
So the crusaders did not wear that flat-topped helmet till the 1200s?
Yup, Lindybeige has a video on crusader helmets specifically
There were crusades during the 13 th century
No, late 1100s
15th Century music was the Dark Souls III title music that is engraved into the back of my skull.
Brigandine and chainmail+gambeson(or other type of thick cloth) is the coolest armour ever...also the Norse helmets with the nasal masks-the coolest looking ever.
The Dark Souls 3 music is beautiful.
I'm always curious, medieval time, where most army are make up peasant army & armour knights, where peasant soldiers are poor, they wear what they had, while the knights can own armour with various design & style to suit their body size and high, So with no standard outfit/uniform, how those army could tell which soldiers are friends or foes ? besides flag and language.
all i know is, that the British use red coat as theirs standard uniforms, allow General recognize which soldiers is who.
seng create I have this same question
Telsion for ancient Greek, i had theories how those army could tell which soldiers is friends or foes, based on the drawing symbol on their shield, or the formations, the incoming soldiers are foes, while the pushing army from rear are friends...this is just a theories
seng create
The use of untrained levies would, of course, vary by region and time period. In some cases, a knight would bring along an entire retinue of men at arms, in others, they would bring along the local peasantry. In any case, it doesn't make sense to bring along your source of income (the workforce on your land) without looking after them. So, they might provide outdated armor for the peasants, possibly just a padded jack.
As for identification, it could be anything from a bit of cloth tied around the arm, to a tabard with the lord's sigil. But this all depends on time and place.
seng create first of all in medieval times its a complete different thing then we as modern people think!, uniforms werent widely spread at this time! so one thing that they did is each 'regiment' or company or contigent of troops depending on where they were recruited had most likely their so called colours so for example you had a regiment of infantry soldiers from lets say wessex! they would have a standard bearer which job would be to carry the colours of that "regiment" or company or whatever! so it was mostly done with banners and colours which is why banners were so important back then! also to understand this way you have to know that battle tactics at this time were not about charging and spreading eachother like in hollywood were they leave formation and end up in a mixed cluster of small duels!!! this never happend because of many other reasons but one reason is that that way you distuinguish friend or foe and the whole concept of banners losses its value if everyone on impact just leaves the bannerman behind dispurses in a cluster of random melee! this why actual medieval battle tactics were you had your line and group you would stick to that group as much as possible! hence having a man with a huge banner in the middle so you know where approximetly where your group is and if happen to accidently get too far of your group you would look for the banner and get in line again! formations were so important because formations were designed not to break! if formation breaks you loose because people dont know who is who, they loose the group so they usually run away! very important formation not to break also for this topic of knowing who is who!
Garret LeBuis color are very expensive material at medieval time, so possible with symbol to identify who is who, that all i know
Wait a minute. Why are the horses wearing boxing gloves on their backs and hugging each other at 6:18 ?
I dunno what they're called but i think those are extensions of the saddles to help keep the rider on and oriented. They aren't hugging, they're grappling. It's a little known fact that horses invented wrestling.
Lies, the Greeks invented the wrestling.
Nick Dzink Greek horses?
Kingman Highborn That's what i meant.
correction, fighting
metatron the kind of guy to upload a video and instantly have 1080p
I'm trying to get into armoring and based on my (admittedly not large) experience I think the flat tops were just easier to make and thus cheaper, I might be wrong but that's my guess
Very funny how some armor characteristics from the Greco-Roman world that were lost get slowly readopted over time like, grieves, fully encased helmets, neck guards
this is possibly my favorite Metatron video. It is so informative and just well-delivered
Thank you. In my next video, which should come out between today and tomorrow, There Is a section where I review this Evolution again, but with a lot more iconography. Stay tuned :)
Hi Metatron!
It would be pretty interesting a video on horse armour through history. But probably you already thought about that :D Great explanation ad always.
Ciao from Bari.
is there a rough estimate as to how much these respective armors cost during those periods?
Did they forget how to make plate armor after the Romans disappeared? It seems so strange that they all went back to chainmail.
I'm thinking, yes. You have to remember, by the time that Rome fell they had gone back to wearing mail and had been wearing mail for centuries. So given that, I'd day that it's pretty reasonable to believe the knowledge of how to make steel plates was largely forgotten.
Riceball01 They were still making swords and spear tips, which are metal plates squeezed and sharpened at the edges, so I doubt they forgot how to make them. Armor was very affected by fashion, so I think it just was fashionable to have only mail (just like the flat top helm).
Cheaper too to make mail.
Mail works well though, and is easier to produce, so there's two good reasons
madichelp0 And mail was a lot more comfortable and easily maintained than a bunch of overlapping plates. You can see that almost all of the soldiers fighting on campaign preferred mail armor, given that a monument Adamklissi shows almost all of the Roman legionaries in mail. Keep in mind that this monument was built by soldiers, and was built at roughly the same time as Trajan's Column.
I really enjoyed this and I love these long(ish) form talking videos about historical weapons and armour. Looking forward to more like it :)
This is also reflective of the armor progression of the Fighter in most D&D campaigns. It was for me at least.
2:55 Deus Ex Human revolution music lol. I'd be careful with that stuff if I were you.
I don't know what a sugarloaf is, but I want it in my mouth ^_^
You can read "Sugarloaf" by Milovan Glisic. It's main theme is corruption actually.
Interesting, thanks!
Sugarloaf is the round shape given to great helmets as seen here deepeeka.in/media/catalog/product/cache/2/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/0/h015_2.jpg
something like sugar tits I guess
I would not want that in my mouth
It was such a battle between the growth of Weaponry vs armor. With every new upgrade in weaponry there has to be an upgrade in armor to counter it. It was an arms race between blacksmiths on who made the better invention. The science behind the two is amazing and full of knowledge with some being lost through the strongest weapon of all, time. Great video subject and once again full of amazing details.
A wonderful video, I loved that you pointed out that fashion had a lot to do with the development of the armour, as knights would often wear unpractical equipment just for fashions sake. Various head decorations spring to mind. Or later, as the winged Hussars wore the wings purely for the aesthetic purposes.
Gašper Žuber THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!
Telsion Coming down the mountain side! hahah I love Sabaton :D
inb4: "hussars wings were making this spooky sound to scare enemy horses" ;)
In actuality they mostly didn't wear wings. Rarely, though it was done, was a single wing attached to the back of the horse worn. The misconception comes from around 19th century when Polish nationalism and clamour for independence gained a lot of ground. Re-emphasised by writers and painters of the period, it's mostly a myth. I should add that, at the very end of Hussars' existence, when they were jokingly called "Funeral Guard" they apparently did wear wings, but that was entirely outside of combat.
Thank you for the information, but my point was just the fact that they did wear something that was not for personal protection.
Coat of plates! My favorite type of medieval armor! Yaaaay! Also, now I want a full harness of Milanese plate in Kingdom Come Deliverance. I'm pretty damn sure you can get one. You gave that game one hell review! I enjoy all of you videos. Man you make me *even more* excited for medieval warfare knowledge!
17:55 i know that one youtuber that tried that
Knight armor in 16th century:
''Let me show you my boomstick.''
Actually, they just made armors thicker to withstand bullets, and in exchange there were more gaps uncovered so that weight would not be a big issue. It was common until the late 17th century.
The Sister Friede's theme in the 14th century section and the Dark Souls opening in the 15th century section makes me extra moist
You forgot to mention that the great helmet was preceded by the 'mediocre helmet' and the 'so-and-so helmet' before that. It was succeeded by the 'amazing helmet' and later the 'fabulous helmet'. The ultimate head protection was the 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious helmet'.
As the Dragon said, "Pah, Canned food again."
Awesome video. It would be a good idea to make a video about the renaissance armors, in specific the half armors of the Landsknechts and the swiss mercenaries!
I loved this video so much because it showed how armor dramatically changed from full chain to full plate from the 11th century to 15th century. Well done there and thank you so much! I think that armor was useless by 1500 because they already had guns and other advanced weaponry which replaced the medieval ones.
Armor wasn't useless after gunpowder. In fact, Armor became even more important to defend against this new weapon, so it adapted to this new change
@@mrtrollnator123 That seems very true. Thanks for sharing.
@@aleksaradosavljevic4001 no problem mate😎
Methinks a "rider's split" was not just created in the hauberk for the knight to mount his horse.
It was also pretty handy for going to the bathroom I bet.
Greetings, noble one! I have a question to Metatron, the linguist. It is completely unrelated to this video, please excuse. Why do so many english speakers (including you in this video) say eK cetera when the latin expression is actually eT cetera? I have heard this consistently from many native english speakers and it does not seem to be an actual mistake, though it is kind of strange to hear for a german speaker. We use this expression a lot - in the form of eT cetera...
hans wurst It depends on where in the US or UK you're in. Some places, they say the "t". Others form the t and c into a "ck" sound. I believe the main reason why this is the case is that t and c are hard to pronounce one after the other, and so English simplifies it to a "ck" sound.
Hello fellow noble one, I think the reason many English speakers pronounce it this way is because it's easier to pronounce. The linguistic term is a "dissimilation rule" which basically means that one of two similar adjacent sounds are changed in such a way so they are more different and therefore easier to pronounce. For example: Sixth may be pronounced as sikst or fifth as fift to make it easier. eksetera is easier to say. Another English mangling you might hear is "et cetra". It is also common in English to omit the unstressed syllable in three syllable words like mystery and probably. In German how can you hear the difference between Bund and bunt?
A second explanation may be that many words begin with the prefix /eks/ in English like exercise, exit, exemplary, etc. So it's a sound we are used to.
A final reason may be that etc is often misspelled as ect but i'm not convinced on this one.
Finally a question for you, it's my understanding that Germans often use the phrase „und so weiter“, is there any major difference between usw. and etc.?
hans wurst as a german i would say as far as i know they mean exactly the same thing and are used interchangable.
Actually (I have to say that I didn't put much attention to how he pronounced it) I suppose it's also relevant that in italian "et cetera" has evolved into "eccetera" nowadays, so he may well have pronounced it in italian, maybe even without realizing it (just my 2 cent, from an italian like him) ;)
@Yahya F: "und so weiter" means exactly the same as "et cetera". Most Germans use both forms
Hi Metatron, hi all, quick question for you or anyone who can help me. I saw you included several modern illustrations depicting men in their armour, and some weapons. The images have white backgrounds and little black numbers next to each piece depicted.
Do you know which book/resource these illustrations come from? I didn't see it mentioned in the description and I'm thinking I'd like to buy it, if it's in a book.
Man that Dark Souls 3 intro music hit the spot.
The ratio protection/comfort&flexibility is more important than protection alone.
Was there significant quality improvements to the mail in that era vs the mail used by Romans before Christ?
traderjoes from what I’ve read the Roman mail was a combination of butted and riveted while medieval mail was riveted only.
I'm rather late to the video and have no idea if you'll even see this; but - From what you've said, the order of plate/not mail existence is: Head > Arms and Legs, and lastly the body? I know there were plates put in here and there, and then the Greek muscle armour and so on, but an actual breastplate came after the development of partial/full encasement armour for the legs and arms?
Very interesting video. I also find it helpful for designing armor for a fantasy story, here's how I would use them for my story. (Based on the thumbnail)
1100: Light Infantry and City Guards
1250: The King's Guard
1330: Common Knights
1400: Elite Knights
1450: King's Armor and Tournament Armor
Thanks very much for the Education!
How is the Bessègue circular armor piece spelled ?!
I'm having a problem searching for info on it !!
"Have to place a knight, and how to date him" ;)
Plate starts coming into play. Dark Souls music initiates. YES PLEASE.
14th century part. *MUSIC OF THE DANCER STARTS PLAYING AND I BREAK OUT IN COLD SWEAT*
It would be interesting to see how steel plate armor would've evolved if it weren't for gunpowder eventually making it obsolete.
Why did they use 3/4 sleaves? It does not strike me that it would save that much resources compared to the cost of the rest of the mail, especially when you add in the cost of sheild, helmet, and horse.
It’s for mobility really, there is less weight on the forearm so you can move more easily
@@celticperspective5183 Fair enough. Mobilty vs armour protection is part of the equation still having to be assessed with modern armour (both personal and vehicular).
@@ostrowulf lol I didn't realise I answered a question from 4 years ago, but yeah I think that they would have prioritised mobility over protection especially as the larger shields would have made arm protection practically redundant
@@celticperspective5183 All good, I do it sometimes too. Took me a minute to figure out the refrence point of what my comment was even reffering to though. But yeah, having a sheild makes the calculation a little different as to if you want to bother wearing armour on your forearm. I mean, Romans were relatively (for their time) heavily armoured, with not a lot on the arms with their masive sheilds. The same logic applying later on with also relatively large sheilds.
Question: While leather as a WHOLE armor was nonexsistent (cause from what I know learned to make armor seen in fantasy alot of cows or what have you would have to be slaughtered and given the fact cows were important for things other than meat and leather) it was still used as straps and belts and so on. So my question to you is. how really tough was this leather. As you stated at the last minute of your episode the Italians used that singular strap for hundreds of years THEREFORE it can be assumed it can take the blow of a sharp blade. the question is...could it? and if so would that mean that leather was tougher back then than it is now?
you should call the video meta armour from 11-15th century
iS thAt NamE A JoJo rEFerEncE?
The_Shinigami one of the faw non-jojo reference comment I mad and it become jojo reference so yes it's motherfucking jojo reference
Everything is a JoJo reference.
I live by the faith that life is a JoJo reference
The_Shinigami yes you are right god gaved life to us so we can become I jojo reference thaink you for making me understand god plan
You're welcome
You make me want to stop calling it medieval, and start using the century names. Nice video.
Great video!
What about Spanish armor? and the famous XVI century conquistador helmet, was it functional?
The armor at 19:42 is not a Milanese one. it is in fact a armor of the so called Schott-Sonneberg Style, a early 16 century armor which preceded the Maximilian type armor. You can recognize it for example by the breastplate without the leather strap, which would be essential for a milanese style armor ;)
Why do some medieval paintings look so poorly drawn? I mean perhaps they were made by someone important but they look as if they were drawn by a child at the time.
The knights in the 11th century image are very disproportionate, what is the reason behind that? Perhaps it can be a next video idea :)
Techniques for quality art were NOT well propogated to most places. Hell, to my understanding, literacy barely even was to those outside of the church and nobility, and writing/reading was far more important than good art to people of the time. Still it is really odd just how bad most medieval european art was xD
Well, as someone who has painted early medieval art, such as illuminated manuscripts, standard manuscript art (such as the Maciejowski Bible style), and "Byzantine" or Eastern Orthodox iconography, I must say that there are some running themes in the artwork and it's not as easy as it first appears. Although, I do agree that some art looks incredibly odd and sloppy compared to others. That might be due to time limits and the fact that many of these images are much smaller than you might think.
But even I, before recreating these images, believed they were merely childish and easy to do with very little effort. I have quite the different opinion about them now. :)
It was the popular style back then. Being realistic was not a large concern, getting the point across and looking flashy (To a person of the time) was all that mattered.
That Deus Ex and Dark Souls soundtrack in the background, you beautiful, cultured man!
great helmet is my favorite. any one else?
I like the Sallet with the Bevor more
wich kind?
Yeah, I'm with you. Sallet and Bevor just looks cool, and it seems very practical (especially for infantry)
The Great Helm messes with your field of vision and breathing a lot, and can be vulnerable to blunt impact force traveling vertically on top of the helmet, especially if the top is not rounded. The end result is a helmet that will totally give you a bit of cheer and respect among your company or your friends, and perhaps save your life if you find yourself surrounded by blokes whacking at your head with swords (which is not exactly a priority goal for anyone not wanting to die on a battlefield), but also a helmet that you won't willingly put on before the battle.
This is simply because it will pretty much be really unbearable to wear for a long period of time, no matter how manly and rugged you may be with dealing with uncomfortable conditions. In addition to that, it can be of poor quality, since it's so popular among the fans of the crusades and therefore mass-produced by below average smiths today.
So if you end up rocking a Great Helm onto your fictitious battlefield or a re-enactment, make sure you know the disadvantages of it, and that it's not made of recycled soda cans in China :)
*Sallet + Bevor* OR *Bellows Face Sallet*, look it up if you haven't heard of this *Sallet variant.* It's my favorite helmet, but I tie it with the Standard *Sallet + Bevor* combo.
Is Metatron a fan of Deus ex? There's Deus ex music playing in the background.
13:45 misspelled "Pembridge"
"Ashen one, hearest thou my voice, still?" - Joan of Arc, probably.
Excuse me if I am ignorant, but how come there doesn't seem to be any you-tubers who talk about French Chevaliers (Knights) at all?
jigilo because they are to fancy to talk about
jigilo They are losers!!!
Wow thanks guys, your input is so helpful to me.
jigilo perhaps they aren't popular enough or shown enough in popular media
I suppose that's a good reason but I've always struggled to see why. The whole idea of Knights came from France around the age of Charlemagne, and it's not like they were awful, they beat back the English in the hundred years war and spear-headed the crusades.
I’ve always loved the 1400’s sectioned light armor
Plates fitted to the body that allow for more range of movement with more armor on places like the belly, legs and arms, with less and less as we get to the head has also been an aesthetic I love a lot when it comes to armor- definitely not efficient in the real world, but it still looks incredible (if looking to fashion alone)
Your hair and facial hair are MUCH better like that :)
Poudevigne_N He is easy on the eyes, isn't he? ;)
By being italian he has an unfair advantage there ^^
@@Azaghal1988 So he's a wop
Could you start some videos about the Byzantine empire, soldiers/armor and it’s history?
a nice Video, I do have an few critics though. You said that wehn you see a Kettle Helmet you can immediately to ca.1200, but this Type of Helmet was common 'till the End of the 15th Century, evendoe, according to the Artwork, it was more Common by the Common Soldier then by Nights. Secondly the Visby style Gauntlets date to the Battle of Visby 1361, and even though they might have been in use earlier by the Knightly Class, I don't know of any Sources that would indicate a Use in the Late 13th Century.
Hello and thank you for watching. It is a common mistake to consider the armour found at Visby as contemporary to the date of the battle but that's a huge mistake completely debunked by the best of historians. The armour in question, found in the mass graves, belonged to the Gutnish country yeomen, peasants who did not wear the best armour of the time, but instead wore very old fashoned armour, which is what we see for instance in the visby gauntlet which needs to be dated several decades back in time to the time I have dated it in this video.
For the Kettle helmet I think it goes without say that when I mention the date of the development of a certain helmet that helmet did not automatically and immediatelly go out of fashion and it will be used for several decade together with other kinds of helmets.
What I ment to say was that if you see a kettle hat it's atleast a late 12th century early 13th century helmet.
I can assure you a lot of thought and double and triple checking went into the making of this video and the information I share on it.
Hello!
Thank you so much for your Answer!
I'm sure that you spend lots of Time researching for your Videos, and I appreciate that, and your Channel is one of my Favorite ones on RUclips.
I know that the Gauntlets found in Visby where probably not common around 1360, and I also said that in my original Comment, I just don't know of any Sources for them being in use as early as the 13th C. But how far you should date them back is probably pretty vage, I personally would date them to around 1330.
According to the Kettle Helmet, I must have understood you wrong, I thot you ment that they where just in use around 1200. Sorry for that.
Thanks ones again,
Singa
Who exactly are these so-called "best of historians"? On what basis do you conclude with such a bombastic term? Sorry, I really like the effort and quality of these videos, but I'm disappointed in the amount of sources listed (AKA _none_ ) and as such I regret to tell you that you lose almost all credibility.
I know you're not inventing stuff for the gist of it, not at all, but seriously. I don't know if you hate academic stuff, but you got to at least have _some_ sources in description, or refrain from presenting it as objective fact overall..
Best regards
What, if any, armors did laborers use throughout history? Basically, did they have a medieval version of hardhats or vests?
these videos just get better and better
We all know that most of us would be peasents wearing cheap padded or leather armor if we lived backe then. We like to watch this kind of video for the same reason welike to watch reviews of mclarens and lamborghinis: what else could we do?
Why don't you cover the "armor vs muskets" topic?
It's such a stupid idea that guns ended the age of body armor.
No FUCKING musket could go through knight's armor. Musket ball bullets had low muzzle velocity and stood no chance against armour plate. Then there were mail and gambeson which ALSO were resistive as hell.
Guns did not end the age of armor. Like you said, musket balls cannot punch through plate armor, because of how well crafted they were. But keep in mind that plate armor made it up to the 1870s, and foward. What really ended armor in my opinion was mass production and modern military tactics. (By modern i mean something more advance than mere Pike&Shot).
Firearms didn't necessarily end the age of body armor; it caused the demise of full-suit style armor.
Armor of various forms, such as plate, lamellar, and even paper armor can be effective against firearms. But it became quite unwieldy and cost ineffective to attempt in producing and wearing full-suit of armor that was able to resist bullets completely. Rather, people started investing their resources on other aspects, such as mobility and versatility - rather than focusing mostly on defensive capabilities. A good contrast would be the Curiassiers and Hussars of early modern warfare to a 15th century knight.
And although a bullet may not be able to penetrate a knight's armor, it will still deliver a considerable concussive blow that may seriously injure or kill the opponent.
I think it is even worse with castles vs. cannons. Cannons were around since at least 1300, Yet many castles we see today were built much later.
Are you sure? Trebuchets weren't that powerfull either. And the really large siege-cannons could fire two or three balls a day(But those would have been around 500kg and up).
Ok, I only knew that the largest bombards could only shoot very seldom.
But generally the damage a stone-ball can do against a stone wall is very limited.
Gundpowder definitley would have made a difference at undermining or close range attacks against castles.
Are you suggesting that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is historically inaccurate? Ni!
LOVE THE VIDEO!!!!!!!. verry interesting!
i have a question.
can you make a video in this theme about japanese OR chinese armour??????????
that whould by very intressting.
greetings from holland
Well, it is maybe anachronistic. It does not take forever at all but can be done in 10 minutes. So there is that.
9:36 Is that Sister Friede i hear? Oh boy time to have PTSD again
the funny part about testing armor yourself is if it works you'll know, but if it doesn't then you'll know for about 3 seconds
Can you make a video on man at arms?
If I'm nost mistaken, men at arms refers to knights and possibly soldiers of the time in general; it does not refer to those people in a Medieval/Rennaisance army who weren't knights or nobles.
Riceball01 no no no. the man at arms show on AWE me
that dark souls music for 14th century, just perfect
Is there a similar video for Japanese armor?
CodenameMalleus not that I could find
Great explanations again. Any recommendations for a decent illustrated book on this? And any on weapons?