Things I learned in this video: 1: The laws of Physics are the same in Japan as they are in Europe. 2: Human Kinesiology is the same in Japan as it is in Europe. 3. Long pointy sticks are still the best melee weapon mankind ever produced.
Long pointy stick was so strong the only way to make it stronger was to put progressively more and more distance between you and the person being poked.
blah007001 .....medieval armour used by a army in a battle line...knights all using halbeards or English bill men .....or even war hammers ...backed up by thousands of English longbowmen.....heavy cavalry in reserve to chase down when rout begins .....
If you were to manage to hit someone with a lance in full charge, it doesn't matter if the guy is wearing armour: he will be hurt in so many places and with a lot of pain, I'm sure, just because of the impact and being thrown to kingdome come. You can't withstand a direct hit like that, horses are too powerful.
On tournaments there were quite a few direct hits to armour - lances were blunted but energy and impact were the same. And on the breastplate tournament armour is not so much thicker (or not at all sometimes) than battle armour. In battles there are many hits with charging lances. So, armour DOES matter - lance has great but still limited ability to transfer power from charging horse to target - over limit it would just break (and lances usually did break)/
@@mikeritter7207 Armor matters in the sense that if you do not wear armor you'll be run through from front to back and you'll be done for, but even WITH armor the hit would be similar to being struck by a mace wielded by Hercules himself.
@@rmt3589 one of the more knowledgeable people on this side of youtube (he's been doing hema for 20 years iirc). A lot of his videos are about 19th century stuff though.
Planted armer goes on top of chainmail were both armer Asian Samira armer and chainmail with gombison middle East was both eastern armer and western armer and weapons together
Just dont to against a stabbing weapon. Like a spear or gladius, or pole axe or arrow or any weapon pretty much haha. I know chainmail is super effective I'm just messing around
Padded Cloth armour under, Chainmail under, an advanced plate, with a padded cloth to finish off the top that was was the pinnacle of medieval Armour Japanese would have a different but similar version in their own Armour having to do with silk and plate woulda been fun to see that ran through a simulation like deadliest warrior
The ide that samurai armor was made of wood probably comes from the fact that is always described as being lacquered, a process which in the modern era almost exclusively calls up memories of the shiny surfaces of wooden objects like desks and patios. I know that's why I had that misconception.
The earliest examples of "samurai" armor are from the yayoi period. They are made of wood. Later armors are made with an entire raindow of any combination materials from rice straw, cloth, Japanese paper, leather, chain mail, metal plates, wood, etc. design probably all evolved from the early yayoi period wood armors due to the similarity. while they have certain outlines that look similar to eachother, the actual armors that samurai wear(by the time samurai is a thing) are wildly different in effectiveness, weight, coverage and design philosophy because every armor is tailor made to someone's martial school, style of warfare, the house's economic situation, available materials, etc. there are samurai that wear super heavy armors layers like cloth with some plates sewn in to protect vital organs with a chain mail and small plates middle layer and plates on the outer layer with thick heavy layered squares of tatami just on the left arm to protect the bow arm that is always pointed at the enemy. on a big massive imported horse. and then there are scrawny half-starving samurai wearing a set of sticks and rice straw tied together with leather and barely painted with house colors and emblem to look like a samurai armor with a quick glance from afar with a pouch full of pointy rocks and a spear made from some random stick and the sharpened tip of a hoe salvaged from a farmer's tool. it depends. but yes tl:dr wooden samurai armor did indeed exist.
You should do one for Byzantine armor, or talk about Byzantine weapons and armor in general. They haven't gotten much attention by most historical youtubers.
"Would it hurt like a son of a beautiful morning..." I'm adopting that phrase. Also, I'm inclined to believe that if a knight and a samurai are charging each other on horseback, and the knight is using a lance, it doesn't really matter whether or not the samurai's armor stops the lance, because it seems fairly inevitable that the lance is going to stop the samurai, but not the horse. ;)
Japanese weapons don't really stand that much of a chance. The mix of poor metal quality and regulations on weapons development are too much of a gap to bridge. Medieval and Renaissance European powers were lucky they didn't have those limitations.
Depends entirely on the weapon/armor specifically. A kusarigama would do pretty decent even against plate, as would certain variations of yari, but a katana is going to be pretty worthless against mail.
@@arturoroldan4839 well zweihander just means two hander, and pretty much same type swords were used in all over europe, but they all called it with different name montante, great sword, and so on.
I suspect that a direct hit from a lance in full charge would probably injure a samurai even if it didn't penetrate due to the sheer force behind the hit, there's a reason after all why the joust armors were so thick that knights had trouble moving in them.
And even with all that armor men died in jousts as seen by King Henry II of France. One of the theories for Henry VIII of England becoming the unstable, violent and impulsive man he became infamous as was he was knocked unconscious for hours after falling from his horse in a joust and suffered brain damage as a result. On a battlefield such a situation could leave you drowning in mud as happened to French knights at Agincourt.
I think that's the case with literally every soldier with medieval armour, getting hit with a Lance was probably the same for everybody, the only difference something really made against a Lance was the type of armour (the only difference being you might have a chance at survival with armour) but that doesn't change the force behind the Lance that would probably still break a bunch of bones and incapacite any soldier getting hit
Also worth remembering the point that in jousting the lances where MADE specifically to shatter, something that a battlefield lance would certainly not do.
@@BigWillyG1000armor for battle was lighter and more practical, the weight of the French armor was not the reason for their defeat, but is one of the many myths of Agincourt.
@atatakaiyutanpo Erm... where di you read that ? or what is the source.... Because by my reading Oda Nobunaga had plenty of sworn bannerman (samurai and daimyo alike ) and the usual large amount of common soldiers. And paying someone makes the army weak ? WHY ???
@@andrasvajda2371 If I give you 20 bags of rice to serve my castle and im kind of nice to you, that'd be cool. If Atatakaiyutanpo offered you 50 bags of rice to serve their castle and is also nice of nice to you, you'd probs not give a shit bout me anymore. And thus the fortitude of a paychecked soldier is weak. Many samurai were very well off, and a well off samurai is a man who had such success in battle and life that he could amass great wealth. When you become wealthy and prosperous in an industry where men die young, you are a badass. You would have land and people working land for you. You have no need for a paycheck. You would eat meat and give rice to your underlings. You work for promises of services and deeds, not bags of rice. A strong soldier is one who has fought and earned their place in society to no longer need to serve.
"So, poleaxe or lance." In other words, the same weapons you'd probably fight a knight with. It's almost as if these were near peer cultures when examined from this angle.
I mean lets be honest Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan are almost exactly the same from a social structure PoV, the only real difference is in some culture details (I guess you can also argue religion held more power in Europe).
@@QwertyBoredom122 and also metal and specialisation, japan focused on specialised thrusting weapons and of course specialised weapons in general, while european weapons and armor are generalist, most high quality armors have layers, overlaps and rounded edges, while most pole weapons had hooks, axe/hammer heads, and spikes with catching hooks and the main weapon head too
@@QwertyBoredom122 No, really. the social structure of both nations were very different. they were nothing like each other and japan is a very religious country too, in fact, the religion aspect is so mixed with their culture that the japanese themselves practice shinto practices in their routines without them knowing it, even if they are not shinto practicioners.
I hope not, as a linguist he should know that before the radio, television or even schools every village had their own dialect with different pronouciations, there were no languages as we understand them today.
I sure hope he will! I can see it allready.. Metatron, Lindybeige, Shadiversity and Matt facing off, in an old ruined colloseum (at night) with some Morricone music playing in the background. EPIC
He should have mentioned though, that it canceled armors AS THEY WERE before gunpowder weapons. In Europe late medieval armors (covering all the body) gradually disappeared in favor of thick cuirasses able to stop bullets, but consequently not covering the entire body because of how heavy they were. And yeah, those types of armors will be around for a long time since they were basically designed FOR gunpowder warfare. I'm not too familiar with how things evolved in Japan, but I've read that they adapted the types of cuirasses the Portugues were using, so it's no surprise some armors follwing that model would be able to stop bullets to some extent.
@@xenotypos Except those cuirasses couldnt stop bullets after a point and so where again made lighter then removed entirely in favor of lighter dragoon type cavalry that could outflank gunpowder weapon formations...since gunpowder weapons for a most of their early existence were inaccurate as fuck unless fired in a line.
@@Cryogenius333 It depends when you're thinking about when you say "after a point". I believe it was common until the mid-17th century, and existed until the 19th century to a least extent. But yeah as firearms evolved, armors became less and less common, that fact wasn't my point, so I agree. I was just saying the popular belief gundpowder instantly made armors obsolete just because medieval armors were abandonned is generally wrong, and I was also arguing that the way Metatron presented the bullet proof feature as a characteristic of samurai armors (if "high quality") may be misleading, despite him having clearly stated he's talking about 16th century armors. I think it was more about what the armor was made for to begin with, like in Europe (16th/17th cuirasses weren't inherently better than late medieval armors, but had a different, specialized, purpose).
I'd never heard the one about bamboo or wood samurai armor. I could see that being used by the non-noble fighters. It's difficult to compare because, regardless of time period, European and Japanese fighting styles differed. Samurai were mounted archers who used swords as secondary weapons. Knights were all about riding at each other with long pointy things, followed by riding at each other with smashy things. Eventually, both samurai and knights ended up on foot and using smashy, cutty, or stabby weapons. Once firearms became reliable, people had to decide if they wanted armor that blocked the bullets or if they wanted to be able to move. Metal armor that stopped bullets was heavy.
Hi metatron, you think you will enter the lingüistic war of how to pronounce the word machicolations, and on a side note could you do a video on the bizantian empire and it armors Great video and thank
That European mace has flanges that concentrated the force of the blow, it's basically a can opener. Probably much better than the wooden Japanese bat.
There is one illustration that depict a Japanese flanged mace somewhat similar to the one Metatron have. It's called 胴突: 4.bp.blogspot.com/-nREMmO-qEwU/Wt5Dntc6tHI/AAAAAAAAAxo/BgRtZ92AZBAbIL8Ylww-56JVUwR_UV7SACLcBGAs/s1600/dou%2Btsuki%2Bfrom%2Bbuki%2Bnihyaku%2Bzu.jpg Still, a kanabo would have much more mass and much more leverage compared to a one handed mace
@@AlexanderSilver1996 Maces were widely used. Pretty much any medieval cavalryman be it light or heavy carries either a mace , hammer or axe for anti armor work.
Hey Metatron i am a 15 year old from India. I had no interest in history before discovering your channel. your video on barbarians invoked a love for history in me. I binge watched all your videos and I found them very entertaining as well as informative. I would love to see you discussing about Indian history as our curriculum does not teach us enough about the rich and vast history of the Indian subcontinent. I am sure even many others would love to learn Indian history, especially ancient India. I hope you will see this comment and react to this accordingly.
The Tlingit of Southeast Alaska used wood armor to reasonable effect even against the Russians. You use what you have. I'd love to see coverage of the more sophisticated indigenous armors of North America, as opposed to all the focus on the Central and South American empires.
@@jonathanwells223 It doesn't matter if, on balance, they weren't "that good". Individuals vary a lot in skill, strength and speed. Plus there's simply the element of chance. Your armour still has to protect you, because in a battle, you cannot guarantee you won't be hit and you cannot predict the effectiveness of any individual opponent.
What most people don't understand about a lance in charge is, you're not just dealing with the weight and force of the man. No, you've got all the momentum of the man, armor, and horse, roughly two tons concentrated on that one little point. It doesn't need to defeat the armor. The momentum alone would rupture organs.
Nice video Metatron. Small anecdote about half swording. When i was learning iaido, part of the first set of katas I learned contained a half sword technique in _kyuhon me - soete tsuki (添え手突き/ Hand Thrust)_ It‘s a half swording stab at the opponents stomach with the blade parallel to the ground at waist height. Right hand in a normal grip, left hand supporting the blade midways using the thumb and index finger. It is a lunge that throws the body weight forwards on the left foot while simultaneously trying to shank the opponent with the sword as if doing a two handed thrust with a spear. Of course there are a few other variations that would work better but that’s the one I remember the best.
Although I smiled for the meme, "paper is made of wood" is a oversemplification. Paper and wood are very different materials, you don't just cut very thin slices of wood to get a sheet of paper.
The idea that Samurai were so skilled they didn't need armor goes against common sense and defeats itself. It defeats itself because if you assume Samurai were that skilled, you have to assume that ALL Samurai were that skilled. Which would mean that every time a Samurai goes into battle and has to fight another Samurai, they should expect their opponent to be equally skilled to them. Which means armor is basically a must for survival.
So, in comparison to a game that is inspired by conversations like this (For Honor), the only "Samurai" characters that even remotely makes sense to wear wooden/bamboo armor is the Nobushi and Shugoki. Kensei and Orochi should have metal armor since they are the closest representations to classic Samurai. Aramusha is technically a Ronin, so Aramusha and Shinobi should have little to no armor (Aramusha having lower quality protection than classic Samurai by far since they are shunned and dishonored).
@@SuperHongTay Realism isn't really For Honor's strong-suit anyway. lol Ubisoft could definitely have put more effort into researching the authenticity of the fighters before putting them in (at least armor/material wise). But I don't shut down opposing views, what-if scenarios, and corrections on what I thought was accurate knowledge. That's why I watch Meta and Skallgrim for additional information. The weapons are relatively easy to replicate because they are so iconic, but armor is generally so varied and mix-matched throughout history. I can kinda forgive Ubisoft for the Knights faction authenticity, but I don't know why they went with wood armor for the Samurai, and barely no armor at all for the Vikings. Hide and furs were not the reliable armor Vikings wore (plus horned helmets were an incredibly rare exception). I get that Ubisoft wanted the three original factions to look as distinct from each other as possible, but come on.
Aramusha can still get high class armor if the Shinobi clan they're tasked with protecting is wealthy enough. but on average Aramusha should be bare bones in terms of armor.
@@SuperHongTay I completely agree. And that's what it feels like sometimes. The playerbase for For Honor constantly makes demands of Ubisoft for changes, different characters, and fixes. So, part of it is the fault of the screechy fan boys, while the other part is Ubisoft for listening too much (or not enough in some cases). For Honor can be fun, but it shouldn't be taken seriously as a source for genuine representations of historical armor/weapons. It's a fighting game first and foremost and fun must be the priority. I understand that, which is why I don't complain about it much. But it is a bit frustrating sometimes to see Ubisoft get somethings so horribly wrong. It is what it is. lol
@@chsen318 Absolutely. I would expect a Shinobi to have higher quality gear than a Ronin nearly every time. Especially since they were the eyes and ears of nobles and lords of Feudal Japan. Whether it was subterfuge, espionage, sabotage, or assassination; Shinobi were the masters of wet-work in their time. Armor still doesn't exactly ring a bell too hard for Shinobi, but Ronin (Aramusha) were dishonored to the point of poverty and public shaming. No one would openly support a Ronin by cleaning/repairing their weapons and they couldn't make stable income, so they couldn't afford proper armor. Ronin had to be completely self sufficient and couldn't regularly rely on anyone else. With the social stigma of being an outcast and their prior experience as (hopefully) a seasoned Samurai, it made them talented and reliable mercenaries though.
For honor isn't a very historically accurate game there is a reason they dont where metal armor(short supply) I dont know why people always bring the game up in conversations about historical vs battles. The game is fun first realism later
That armor is Portuguese-made and that armored guy is western European too in sekiro I think so yeah that's definitely the inspiration Edit: so apparently that is Italian-made armor and not Portuguese
Wow! This was a very interesting video. Do you intend on continuing this series of "Medieval Weapons VS Blank"? It would be super fun if you did. Also I didn't fully know that some types of armor could protect you from early guns back in the day. I had an idea but I hadn't been able to find proof. Thanks for showing off that aspect of test armor. I shall be sure to incorporate that into my next book in the tales of orlen seires.
Man I love your videos. All questions awnsered. All comment section "buts" preempted. 👍Grate work. A grate look in to history. Also well done on nailing the Japanese words👍
This is how I always summarized the two: Samurai armour - you're paying for more than pure protection like better ROM, better sight and breathability, great agility and flexibility of roles for longer both on horseback and on foot, (all physique being equal) you're gonna have an easier time conserving your stamina, and etc. Greater value then the sum of its parts even if it's not as protective Knight armour/late plate armour -does one thing and not thing extremely right: protection. Give yourself an armoured horse and you're practically a castle on legs. Major bonus points for keeping you warm quickly in the cold for winter battles even if the same heat is a detriment to you on most seasons. You get exactly what you pay for and then some.
samurai armour gives more movement in such a way as to allow for use of a bow, but otherwise would actually hinder your overall mobility more due to how its (generally) distributed weight wise i think.
@@blackdeath4eternity Late Japanese armor as it is shown in this video is pretty much weight distributed as European plate. What you are talking about is Oyoroi: 10th-13th century armor
But this is fail logic, European armor was better becasue it cover more body, but this is when you mounted knight in general, infantry armor was as little restrictive as Japanese one but with better protection do to better metallurgy
@@swietoslaw Japanese armor body coverage explained: gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1 Steel metalurgy explain with sources (part 1 of 4) gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
@@lucanic4328 Lol and what that suppose to prove? Japanese did have worst metallurgy and its fact, that's why best breastplate and helmets were European. And about cover as I say European not full plate is not more restrictive. And btw face mask are debated if they really were used in combat becasue of how they were worn would not really be good protection
ThegnThrand did this very test a few years back, tested both the "tatami" style armor as well as a set more like what you have against stone/bronze/iron/medieval era weapons.
At least for the tosei gosoku I disagree - if you look at European armies from the mid-to-late-16th century they also moved away from full plate even though they obviously had the tech to make it. While it was great in 15th century warfare, the advancements in firearms (and other changes in warfare) meant you had big diminishing returns from adding extra armor to parts which weren't likely to get shot. Most soldiers by then just wore a cuirass and helmet which is extremely light compared to anything a century ago even for regular soldiers. Even the more heavily armored mercenaries like the Black Riders were noticeably less armored than a knight in Maximillian, but it didn't matter if their limbs had big gaps in plate if the odds of getting hit there were comparatively small. So for the Japanese their reasoning for incomplete coverage was probably the same - mobility, cost, and diminishing returns.
not really. unless you're dealing with temperature extremes most people just 'tough it out' for the duration of a battle. it must be said, though, that geography did play a fairly big role in japanese armor in the sense that native japanese iron is of very poor quality (as pulled from the ground, not a commentary on japense smithing skill), high quality steel had to be imported, which limited their armor technology somewhat.
@@petriew2018 I don't think it's as easy as "toughing it out". There is more to wearing the armor than merely battle. There are also long marches, patrols and the like. Across the world, most armors were as light and as skimpy as the soldiers could reliably get away with.... precisely because exhaustion is a thing. Ok, cost was an issue too, but we're talking about upper class armors, so it's a moot point. Well, jousting armors and the like would be an exception. And the poor quality of iron ore is vastly overblown in most discussions. It's the smelting and smithing techniques are where the most relevant differences occur, when it comes to the material. Japanese were perfectly capable of making chain shirts, yet there are plenty of spots on the average armor of every period where there is nothing but simple cloth covering the person. That indicates to me a concern for comfort rather than any other concerns.
@@Slavic_Goblin no, it pretty much is. If the protection offered is worth the discomfort, people just get used to it because, well, that's just the sane thing to do. All the people who choose comfort over safety wind up dead before they can influence armor technology.
@@petriew2018 So, basically you agree that they took the most comfortable option they could reliably get away with. Key bit "reliably get away with". Cause most of the time a knight wore armor wasn't in a battle. If it's indeed as you say, then explain why jousting armors weren't used on battlefields? Why, as soon as a lighter version of an armors components that offered comparable protection came along, that's the version everyone started to use. Why sode on a Japanese set of armor get smaller as time progresses?
The "point" is that armor is good at its job. Modern armorers and weapons makers have done a good job replicating and testing these weapons and armors. They work. Some can't be replicated. And experience/training can only be approximated.
One thing I find very interesting is the invention and use of the lance. Despite spears and horses being used in many cultures throughout history, the use of lances are comparatively rare. Maybe it had to be a perfect storm of horses, stirrups and highly trained specialized soldiers, that made the lance an effective weapon.
Great video! I was about to completely rip this video, but it was well done! One thing that you missed, though everyone does, is lacquer. Most people think it’s just simply something to protect against the elements, but it’s not. David Thatcher, to whom I’ve spoken with to some lengths, is a renown katchushi, says that lacquer itself is armour. I know this is going to sound very cringe inducing but the mixtures are trade secrets, and when they harden many are akin to ceramics. Also the Japanese were using iron plate armour in the year 300 predating the Samurai from which they got directly from the Koreans. Tankō is a copy of the Korean armour, and sometimes just a direct import. Which makes sense cause the Yamato (Japan’s leading clan/government) was allied with one of the Korean kingdoms at the time.
Nice to see your comment here, i've been following both your instagram and youtube pages for some time now. I find your claim about lacquer interesting, I've visited David Thatcher website before and he clearly understands and mastered the work, but I wonder how much actual protection it would give since its only superficial and would not change the overall structure of the armor.
@@rafaelomansan we’re talking many many layers, and some of the inner layers would have that mixture I talked about that would harden into a ceramic. We use ceramics at times in out bullet resistant armour today. I do have a interview that will be on the channel with Mr. Thatcher. Possible that I might do a strength test involving this lacquer compound. It really is fascinating to think about.
I always thought the misunderstanding of Samurai Armour being weak was that some of the more colourful variants look like they're made out of paracord.. Especially the ones with the flat square pauldrons. It just looks like a bunch of randomly dyed rope was knitted together to make a piece of armour that would either fall apart with a cut to the rope, or wouldn't stop it if you tried to cut it. (I know fully well that the armour would stop it though, otherwise no one would waste their time on it)
yes. in the early renaissance period armor makers would quite literally shoot their armor with a pistol so the buyer could see the dent and know it was 'bullet proofed' admittedly pistols of the time were laughably ineffective and there was no standard for the size of the powder charge used, so that wasn't quite the quality control naive buyers may have believed, which puts a fun spin on the term.
13:00 As a guy who has fallen off a horse and survived a low speed motorcycle crash. I don't think it matters so much that the armor can block an archibus ball. If you're getting rammed by a lance at full speed, you're on the ground and you're not in good shape. Maybe you're not dead, but you're probably out of the battle.
Although you have a mismatch with the helmet and breastplate, you look so cool in that armor! As much as I like Japanese armors, there is just something magnificent about white steel...
i guess the lance is more likela to penetrate in full charge - unlike the balls fired from the gun which are round, the lance concentrates the force in a pointy point amplyfing the force. however it can glance off and ofc if the samurai can sidestep and ofc just fallign backward will take out quite some force from the lance. if the samurai were pinned against a wall my guess is it would penetrate both sides of the armor and get stuck in the wall
A lance charge also has a massive advantage of sheer weight behind the impact since you have all the mass of both the rider, his horse and all the armour both are wearing, honestly outside of a miracle that thing IS going through any combat viable armour, there is a reason that jousting armour was so impractically thick and heavy.
@@robertgiggie6366 - You can't realistically expect any horse to absorb a volley of musket balls and keep going like nothing happened. Meanwhile, I've never heard of bulletproof horse armor. It would have to be very heavy, which would slow down and tire the horses.
You rock, Metatron. I'm curious about what you think about boar tusk helmets like the Sea People and Mycinaen used. I've even seen some with cheek quards. What might be the pros and cons versus the bronze helms of the day (weight, comfort, protection, ease of manufacture, availability of materials, etc.), or even with Greek or Roman bronze and steel helms. Or whatever you think might be interesting about this topic, e.g. other helms of similar materials with different peoples and ages, etc. It also might be cool to see you do some tests; I can picture boar tusks exploding under the force of your mighty blow.🤣 BTW, my wife and I loved your girlfriend's viking makeup. We gave it a thumbs up and subscribed. We also purchased some Viking jewelry. Sweet!
Funny, the samurai in old period prefer the cut over the thrust when using sword, even when dealing with armour. But when edo period reaching it's end, when armour combat no longer exist, then the techniques transition rapidly to focus more on the thrust (The biggest example is Tennen Rishin Ryu, came directly from Kashima Shinto Ryu. They still kept the traditional practice weapons like very thicc and almost straight bokuto but alot of their katas contain the thrust, something that wasn't exist in Shinto schools)
Don't know where you got that idea we see form weapons at a time such as daggers specifically for armored combat were common and thrust Focus, even swords at that time had pointier tips then later edo ones, schools such Yagyū Shingan-ryū which derived from school specifically design for the Battlefield show off more thrust than cuts in armor,Tennen focus more on the thrust in the armor section from what I seen, I question shinto protection for the neck was not uncommon even for common foot soldiers I know lots of shcool kata were lost over time or change during edo,also the armored they show-off in the video you can find on RUclips Parts like the sode Would have been outdated long before sengoku period and they're not even wearing the leg armor properly. Edit: wait sorry I'm thinking of another shinto ryu.
@@eagle162 because when i look at japanese sword evolution through out era, i noticed the when they transitioned from the Tachi to Uchigatana then Katana, the sword shape was not just shorter, but getting straighter over time. There were some noticable differences between nihonto made in Early mid edo period compare to late edo period, because before transitioning to Meiji era, the katana looks to me is almost straight and only have a small sori Also it's about how samurai practice swordmanship in peace time too. I keep questioning why the shinai used in today's kendo is not curve like the katana but straight. It's totally possible to make it curve (just look at bamboo naginata) but why they chose not to. The reason can't be "it's more work to make" because that's not how the japs do stuffs. So i think the reason why the 4 pieces straight shinai was invented to replace Yagyu Shinkage Ryu fukuro shinai was because of rapid techniques transition in Edo period. Fukuro Shinai is straight, but too weak to withstand a thrust attack because it used to practice Yagyu Shinkage ryu techniques (which also don't have any thrust technique) so the 4 pieces shinai was born to serve that purpose because despite the fact alot of bokuto in that time was kinda straight, it's too dangerous to practice full contact with
The earliest gunpowder formulas were completely pulverized. However on transport to the battlefield the ingredients separated. Hence a dangerous remixing was necessary. Later in Europe people began making "corned" powder. They moistened the pulverized ingredients. Form them into flat cakes. Dry the sheets, break them carefully & then tumbled the grains with graphite powder. It was sorted into cannon powder, musket powder, pistol powder & priming powder.
In a question whatever a samurai armour would work well against European weaponry, my biggest concern would be a lance. I honestly can't imagine they would work well against lances considering how European armours have changed after the development of lance rests. Edit: Nevermind, you actually addressed that point. Good analysis as always.
Both sides armour and weapons counter each other, the issue would be the Europeans generally at this point are starting to become centralised states, while Japan is still divided into clans.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Not exactly though. Japanese armour from what I can see lacks elements to withstand the impact that could be delivered by a lance. But your point is actually even better than the mine about lances. With the centralisation of the European kingdoms came professional armies. Combine that with the sheer variety of weaponry and tactics presented by European armies and Japanese armies would be in some serious trouble. To be honest it's not a fair comparison. Japan is just a bunch of islands while Europe is a whole continent full of different cultures.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 yeah the lance could be trouble but yet again a lance hits you no matter what your wearing your going to hurt badly after that. But like you and i said the issue is Japan is one nation, divided by warring clans, while Europe at this time was starting to become nation states with standing armies emerging. not a fair comparison really.
If a lance can breakthrough plate (there are records of it ) it can certainly lunch through samurai armour but it I'm duel it would be difficult unless the samurai charges back
@@El-Silver Besides the problem with penetrating armour, lances have a tendency of sliding on the breastplate into weak spots like armpits and throat. That's why European armours were reinforced in those areas since the mid-XIV century. As for a duel... well it depends what kind of duel it is. There are dozens of different possible setups.
Honestly, when I look at the arm protection of your armour I'm pretty sure that breaking one of your arms with a good polearm or even a longsword hit shouldn't be too hard.
I am pretty sure you didn't consider the mobility it offered it to Samurai and his entire-lifetime training to deal with things like this.....knowing very well limitation of his armour and your stupidity would allow him to close the distance in matter of seconds. I can guarantee you death with 1 hit if you allow him to close the distance cuz decapitation is one of the favourite technique of samurai and there are multiple ways to achieve it......you can call samurai one of masters of decapitation in Middle-century world judging by amount of techniques and scholary literature they had about it. You may not know it but in the end SAMURAI is going to be paid on basis of quality of head he bought to his masters and decapitating cut was its criteria....
@@barneybeartilde9601 Dude unlike popular belief Helmets are not fixed on Knights face and you can even use your blade during attack to bump it little upwards and slice the curved blade against his neck.....judging by Katana blade geometry he will be done in matter of seconds
I've been wondering, what are the parts of the helmet that curl back on each side for? Also I've noticed Japanese helmets can have a lot of decorative elements which stick out in all sorts of places which seems to contrast with western helmets, do these not create a sort of disadvantage in that your opponent could manipulate your movements by hooking onto them etc?
@@JapanatWar Ahh I see, I can kind of see how that would work. Although it still looks as if it would be easy to get your blade caught between the dome and the fukigaeshi rather than sliding off the side of the helmet which I assume would be a bad thing for the wearer, wouldn't it? Or is this possibility negligible?
ᚻᛁᚱᚹᚢᛚᚠ It would be very rare for that to happen and at that point you as the defender should have already moved in with your tanto to get into the gaps of his armour.
Metatron made a video about that years ago. When you see a very fancy helmet with a lot of large decorations everywhere, it wasn't used un combat, only to show off so everyone will see your rank and your wealth when you do ceremony or feast
@@juanlulourido548 This - Todd's Workshop tested them a few months back and they could barely dent a plate cuirass. Tosei gosoku isn't quite as good, but it's still close enough that at worst the arrows would make a slightly deeper dent.
@@Bluglojo I think his "rivetted padded mail" might be a brigandine or lamelar which both historically and in testing have been shown to be quite effective against arrows of all sorts.
Hello Metatron! I would like if you talked about the medieval middle east from the 5th century to the 15th century, just like what you did with the crusaders a full documentary! I find it rather weird that I can't find anything about the medieval middle east, I don't know what type of armor they wore or what weapons they used. I only know that they used a weapon named the Saif or Shamshir. it's seems people are more interested in Medieval Europe. I'd appreciate it if you would talk about the Medieval Middle East.
Kinda, even as early as the late 1300's "primitive" firearms where already in semi-wide use across Europe and by the mid 1400's cannons where already the primary siege weapon, although probably not as as wide spread as in Japan since by the time Oda made them popular the advancement of technology itself had made them far easier and cheaper to make.
Acording to Wikipedia "The first recorded use of gunpowder weapons in Europe was in 1331 when two mounted German *knights* attacked Cividale del Friuli with gunpowder weapons" so Yee
I'd definitely have to pass on the arquebus. Hitting anything beyond 10-20 yards, particularly when there's a bunch of people around trying to kill you, was more a matter of luck than anything. That's if it even went off in the first place. Between that and the wildly inconsistent quality of the powder, shot, and construction of the barrel, they were only slightly more dangerous for the person being shot at than the person doing the shooting. Though I do imagine the psychological effect was not insignificant. Anyway, very neat video sir.
Dude they were wearing bronze Barrel as armour which was absolutely useless for anything cuz doesn't offer full protection but its 30 kg weight limit mobility like crazy and armies of time were just walking up to barrel men and destroy his legs with spear......then when he is on ground plunge a spear to his head or underside opening of barrel.
Full body armor is a bit of a stretch, Greeks did not wear braces, and dedicated leg armor, mostly a helmet, cuirass, and shin armor. Full body armor would extend to the arms, the hands, the feet (they only wore sandals), etc.
4:20 that argument about not wearing armor for mobility worked out really well for the chinese during the boxer rebellion. The monks thought their bodies were strong enough to withstand bullets. The plan was so effective that that was the last boxer rebellion.
10:25 wait a minute!!!! its known that late european armor makers "tested" the armors against gunfire but with light powder charges to claim that their armor was bulletproof in order to sell it. surely japanese makers must have done so too. accounting for this fact, and the inconsistency of firearms of the period, the fact that an armor has stopped one bullet doesnt make it "bulletproof" or as you say "proof", it only means that that armor was able to stop that particular bullet with that particular charge. who knows maybe a couple of grains more in powder or a different type of projectile would make the same so called "proven" armor innefective. with this Im saying that the fact that some rich nobleman is using a top of the line "test" armor, doesnt necesarily mean that he would survive the next shot to the chest he recieves.
I know that in the variois wars of the ottoman empire, where matchlocks quickly became the standard arm of line infantry armour became ineffective to the point where it was swiftly reduced only to mounted heavy lancers, and even for them eventually just a chestplate and helmet. The proofing indeed seems bogus, save for extremely heavy, and thus partial, or immobile armours.
Regarding gun resistance, Japanese guns had both of smaller caliber and smaller powder charge than most European guns of 16th and 17th century, so armor being "bulletproof" against Japanese guns would not make it automatically as effective against European guns.
Nah you can still read it as weapons of the medieval era, vs japanese samurai armor. It's up to the individual to see it whatever way they see it. But I get what you mean, cause it looks like they are refering to it as the place the weapons come from due to the use of "Japanese" for the armor.
well you know i have to agree about that if people ask knights vs samurai i still think samurai would win but i think landsknechts is most likely to win against samurai
Funnily enough, through the 16th and early 17th century all over Asia, Japanese mercenaries were famous and sought after especially by European powers like Spain and the VOC. They had a very good reputation to be extremely effective but occasionally unruly soldiers
@@Ivnnih2774 ironically a knight would just own a samurai due to better equipment, especially the armor, but the samurai would probably fair so much better against a landsknechts due to better mobility.
@@petriew2018 one huge factor... guns, its the weapon that cause heavy cavalry obsolete several times knights beaten up by undisciplined peasant armed with crude spear and arquebus
@@Ivnnih2774 yeah, if you're comparing a samurai with a gun to a knight without i don't know why you're wasting anyone's time because that's just a stupid comparison from the get go... you're not actually comparing them on anything close to an even footing, you're just trying to justify a preconceived opinion.
Another great advantage is the hand and a half bastard sword with those deadly murder strokes or using a shield with a mace or hammer. Basically adding another massive layer to the European armor. Also a great weapon having used a heater shield with the point out facing my fist so I can punch with it while using it to cover or impede their attacks/sight as I simultaneously go for an opening. I don’t frankly know much about the samurai, but I haven’t really seen them utilize shields and that alone makes the knight even more likely to edge out a constant victory.
5’4 120lb weeb with a crude sharpened yard stick vs 6’4 220lb professional warrior with experience fighting other warriors as opposed to the serfs that the weeb was designed to slaughter.
6’4 in medieval times? Man would have been a giant. If i recall correctly, average Europeans were 5’7” to 5’9”. While average Japanese men were 5’2” to 5’4”. Still a sizable difference but not an entire foot. Also both were designed to kill peasants, but routinely fought professional warriors.
Wait is this guy trying to say that samurai were weak and that some oversized body building knight would be better than a samurai ? I mean if u put it that way then I guess but that is a huge difference
So we have a Japanese geek talking about how superior Japanese armor is to Western Armor and weapons? Well, it's like he says. It's up to the skill and class of the person you are fighting. I Highly doubt that beautiful armor could stand up to some of the more violent hand canons and such but yeah whatever. lol
@@valentine_puppy I certainly didn't get that impression watching the video. It makes me seriously wonder if you even watched the video. He makes the case that it's roughly comparable in many ways in its designed purpose, and lists a couple of weapons (the Pole Axe and the Lance) that he thinks would be very effective against Japanese armor. At no point does he even imply that it's "superior" to western armor.
@@cliff7641 Let me ask you this, Does he at any point give the merits of European armor to the same weapons? I know this isn't strictly an armor to armor video. However, I would contend that he did feature a person wearing European armor. Albeit for humor. He was also talking about European Weapons. Would not someone whom is talking about European weapons not mention or bring up the capabilities of the European armor to defend against these weapons as a form of shorthand comparison so we the viewer can understand the relevance to the armor presented? Meaning, If weapon A can damage full plate then in Japan weapon A can do damage B? I think that's fair is it not? The answer is of course its fair. Also, there are MANY more weapons that would be effective against 16th Century Japanese Armor that European Armor figured out. For instance Long Bow Bodkin shot medium range with 100 pound draw weight and impact with 145 joules of force would do a job on any part not center mass. Perhaps the flail or other such weapons. See what i mean? Last thing, when he said WE when using Japanese words. It made it sound or made an impression that he cares more for Japanese things than Western ones. When i say WE say this or WE say that. I am not using that form in any other context than to include myself and a bias there of. Bias I remind you isn't strictly bad in the word but how one uses it in a sentence that indicates its intended meaning. At least, in a first impression.
@@valentine_puppy 'does he need to say it for it to be there' yes, yes he does. Because if he doesn't say it he didn't say it. the reason he made this video was because of the wide preconception that japanese armor is inherently inferior to european armor, which is not the case.
To wear effectively Yoroi, the weight should be well balanced on the shoulders AND the hips. That's whats the "obi" is for. You also need to adjust those kote. I'm sure you know that wearing any armor is more than just putting it on yourself.
even if the armor could withstand the force generated by the impact of a lance in full charge, that would definitely kick back the opponent. it's not like that samurai is cemented in place. so you have anyway much more diverse trauma with stopping power regarding the ability to stay in combat and keep fighting
Things I learned in this video:
1: The laws of Physics are the same in Japan as they are in Europe.
2: Human Kinesiology is the same in Japan as it is in Europe.
3. Long pointy sticks are still the best melee weapon mankind ever produced.
but with diferent pointy ends!
4. *POLEAXE*
Long pointy stick was so strong the only way to make it stronger was to put progressively more and more distance between you and the person being poked.
blah007001 .....medieval armour used by a army in a battle line...knights all using halbeards or English bill men .....or even war hammers ...backed up by thousands of English longbowmen.....heavy cavalry in reserve to chase down when rout begins .....
As Monty Python once said, "What about a pointed stick?"
If you were to manage to hit someone with a lance in full charge, it doesn't matter if the guy is wearing armour: he will be hurt in so many places and with a lot of pain, I'm sure, just because of the impact and being thrown to kingdome come. You can't withstand a direct hit like that, horses are too powerful.
On tournaments there were quite a few direct hits to armour - lances were blunted but energy and impact were the same. And on the breastplate tournament armour is not so much thicker (or not at all sometimes) than battle armour. In battles there are many hits with charging lances. So, armour DOES matter - lance has great but still limited ability to transfer power from charging horse to target - over limit it would just break (and lances usually did break)/
at least if you wear a cuirass the lance won't penetrate you deep enough to hit the guy behind you! Or at least it would lose most of it's power!
If u have full plate armor than it is not 100 per
@@mikeritter7207 Armor matters in the sense that if you do not wear armor you'll be run through from front to back and you'll be done for, but even WITH armor the hit would be similar to being struck by a mace wielded by Hercules himself.
@@mikeritter7207 I believe tournament lances are also made to be easier to break so less force would be delivered?
Imagine a "Forged in fire" kind of show with the Metatron explaining the weapon/shield/armor of the week.
I WOULD WATCH !!!!!!
Dave Baker is an actual weapons' historian, he knows perhaps even more than metatron. On the other hand metatron is more specialized in feudal Japan.
@@emperorconstantine1.361 ...me too...!
I think Matt Easton should be a judge on Forged in Fire, he knows tons about the weapons, and he'd be a very good tester as well for most swords.
"but will it ... protect?!" - stabs armor once or twice "it will ... protect!"
Skallagrim, shadiversity schoolgladitoria and metatron video on same day? What a day to be on youtube!!!
Physicsgod 107 Yes, When it rains, it pours!
I've known Skallagrim and Shadiversity for years. Just found Metatron yesterday.
Who's Schoolgladitoria?
@@rmt3589 one of the more knowledgeable people on this side of youtube (he's been doing hema for 20 years iirc). A lot of his videos are about 19th century stuff though.
This is why i love chainmail. Cuz the chainmail doesnt only protect the whole body but the weakspots as well
The Celts "fell for it" with this essential invention for the warriors of old and the inspiration for the bulletproof vest.
Planted armer goes on top of chainmail were both armer Asian Samira armer and chainmail with gombison middle East was both eastern armer and western armer and weapons together
Not as protective as a plate though.
Just dont to against a stabbing weapon. Like a spear or gladius, or pole axe or arrow or any weapon pretty much haha. I know chainmail is super effective I'm just messing around
Padded Cloth armour under, Chainmail under, an advanced plate, with a padded cloth to finish off the top that was was the pinnacle of medieval Armour Japanese would have a different but similar version in their own Armour having to do with silk and plate woulda been fun to see that ran through a simulation like deadliest warrior
The ide that samurai armor was made of wood probably comes from the fact that is always described as being lacquered, a process which in the modern era almost exclusively calls up memories of the shiny surfaces of wooden objects like desks and patios. I know that's why I had that misconception.
The earliest examples of "samurai" armor are from the yayoi period. They are made of wood. Later armors are made with an entire raindow of any combination materials from rice straw, cloth, Japanese paper, leather, chain mail, metal plates, wood, etc. design probably all evolved from the early yayoi period wood armors due to the similarity.
while they have certain outlines that look similar to eachother, the actual armors that samurai wear(by the time samurai is a thing) are wildly different in effectiveness, weight, coverage and design philosophy because every armor is tailor made to someone's martial school, style of warfare, the house's economic situation, available materials, etc.
there are samurai that wear super heavy armors layers like cloth with some plates sewn in to protect vital organs with a chain mail and small plates middle layer and plates on the outer layer with thick heavy layered squares of tatami just on the left arm to protect the bow arm that is always pointed at the enemy.
on a big massive imported horse.
and then there are scrawny half-starving samurai wearing a set of sticks and rice straw tied together with leather and barely painted with house colors and emblem to look like a samurai armor with a quick glance from afar with a pouch full of pointy rocks and a spear made from some random stick and the sharpened tip of a hoe salvaged from a farmer's tool.
it depends.
but yes tl:dr wooden samurai armor did indeed exist.
You should do one for Byzantine armor, or talk about Byzantine weapons and armor in general. They haven't gotten much attention by most historical youtubers.
The noble Cataphract
"Would it hurt like a son of a beautiful morning"
I'm using that, if no one minds.
If I ever have kids or become a respectable member of society and can't keep swearing like a sailor I'm stealing that line too
@@arthas640 Have fun.
Sun of a beautiful morning. Sun
@@F1derful. Son is funnier.
"Would it hurt like a son of a beautiful morning..."
I'm adopting that phrase.
Also, I'm inclined to believe that if a knight and a samurai are charging each other on horseback, and the knight is using a lance, it doesn't really matter whether or not the samurai's armor stops the lance, because it seems fairly inevitable that the lance is going to stop the samurai, but not the horse. ;)
My favourite line is 'Since you're the robin hood of the aquabus, then bye-bye samurai."
@@ruki4929 Arquebus- It's a late medieval portable cannon, not an early super soaker. ;)
@@BrazenBard ...dang. got my hopes up that europe conquered the world with water fights.
@@ruki4929 The Middle Ages would be a lot more sanitary if they did
If the lance connected with the samurai and no the other way around.
So now we need “Samurai’s weapon vs Medieval armor”
Edit: What a great discussion we have here) Noble Metatron, check this out)
boink
Japanese weapons don't really stand that much of a chance. The mix of poor metal quality and regulations on weapons development are too much of a gap to bridge. Medieval and Renaissance European powers were lucky they didn't have those limitations.
Depends entirely on the weapon/armor specifically. A kusarigama would do pretty decent even against plate, as would certain variations of yari, but a katana is going to be pretty worthless against mail.
I think you mean samurai weapons versus europian armor.
@@demomanchaos How would a Kusarigama do well against plate?
Moral of the story? Use a beaked mace when dealing with, whatever the other dudes wearing 😂
Wanderingwalker 1990 also aim for the face or neck.
Oda nobunaga: just use three lines of arquebus firing in rotation
@@Ivnnih2774 *laffs in 17th century double layered and rusted plate*
@@magniwalterbutnotwaltermag1479 *laughs in my british mark 1 tank*
@@arthas640 tiger goes knneneneenehehehehheeeeee
Yes, if I'm not mistake, Portuguese beside do some spices trades with Japanese I think they could trade and trained samurais with gunpowder
A polearm would destroy it, even a Zweihander.
@@arturoroldan4839 why call it by a german name if the rest of your comment is in english? Lol
@@Mr_Chode Because is the actual name of that type of sword, is not translated, like gladius, which means sword.
@@arturoroldan4839 well zweihander just means two hander, and pretty much same type swords were used in all over europe, but they all called it with different name montante, great sword, and so on.
They did
I suspect that a direct hit from a lance in full charge would probably injure a samurai even if it didn't penetrate due to the sheer force behind the hit, there's a reason after all why the joust armors were so thick that knights had trouble moving in them.
And even with all that armor men died in jousts as seen by King Henry II of France. One of the theories for Henry VIII of England becoming the unstable, violent and impulsive man he became infamous as was he was knocked unconscious for hours after falling from his horse in a joust and suffered brain damage as a result. On a battlefield such a situation could leave you drowning in mud as happened to French knights at Agincourt.
I think that's the case with literally every soldier with medieval armour, getting hit with a Lance was probably the same for everybody, the only difference something really made against a Lance was the type of armour (the only difference being you might have a chance at survival with armour) but that doesn't change the force behind the Lance that would probably still break a bunch of bones and incapacite any soldier getting hit
Also worth remembering the point that in jousting the lances where MADE specifically to shatter, something that a battlefield lance would certainly not do.
Honestly a direct couched lance hit from a charge will send most everyone straight to the shadow realm
@@BigWillyG1000armor for battle was lighter and more practical, the weight of the French armor was not the reason for their defeat, but is one of the many myths of Agincourt.
9:50 Tell that Takeda Shingen.
Yes and with a nuke
Just in cse
@atatakaiyutanpo Erm... where di you read that ? or what is the source.... Because by my reading Oda Nobunaga had plenty of sworn bannerman (samurai and daimyo alike ) and the usual large amount of common soldiers.
And paying someone makes the army weak ? WHY ???
@@andrasvajda2371 If I give you 20 bags of rice to serve my castle and im kind of nice to you, that'd be cool.
If Atatakaiyutanpo offered you 50 bags of rice to serve their castle and is also nice of nice to you, you'd probs not give a shit bout me anymore. And thus the fortitude of a paychecked soldier is weak.
Many samurai were very well off, and a well off samurai is a man who had such success in battle and life that he could amass great wealth. When you become wealthy and prosperous in an industry where men die young, you are a badass. You would have land and people working land for you. You have no need for a paycheck. You would eat meat and give rice to your underlings. You work for promises of services and deeds, not bags of rice. A strong soldier is one who has fought and earned their place in society to no longer need to serve.
Didn't Takeda Shingen died from old age whilst on the march?
"So, poleaxe or lance."
In other words, the same weapons you'd probably fight a knight with. It's almost as if these were near peer cultures when examined from this angle.
I mean lets be honest Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan are almost exactly the same from a social structure PoV, the only real difference is in some culture details (I guess you can also argue religion held more power in Europe).
@@QwertyBoredom122 and also metal and specialisation, japan focused on specialised thrusting weapons and of course specialised weapons in general, while european weapons and armor are generalist, most high quality armors have layers, overlaps and rounded edges, while most pole weapons had hooks, axe/hammer heads, and spikes with catching hooks and the main weapon head too
@@QwertyBoredom122 No, really. the social structure of both nations were very different. they were nothing like each other and japan is a very religious country too, in fact, the religion aspect is so mixed with their culture that the japanese themselves practice shinto practices in their routines without them knowing it, even if they are not shinto practicioners.
So, any chances of you joining the Great Machiculations War, Metatron?
I hope not, as a linguist he should know that before the radio, television or even schools every village had their own dialect with different pronouciations, there were no languages as we understand them today.
I sure hope he will! I can see it allready.. Metatron, Lindybeige, Shadiversity and Matt facing off, in an old ruined colloseum (at night) with some Morricone music playing in the background. EPIC
@@hoegild1 if it comes to fighting, Matt will take them all. None of them are frequent high level HEMA trained.
@@PalleRasmussen
Don't underestimate Shad's +7 battle cry, Lloyd's +4 bastard sword Arnander, or Rafael's +10 persuasion.
Okay then MACHICOLATIONS!
"Gunpowder does not automatically cancel out armor"
*Screams in Boshin War*
Samurai in anime: SWORDS MAGIC
Actual Samurai: brrrrrrrt *uses Katana to execute wounded
@@badfoody nah nah nah the katana was for executions, you'd use a shorter blade for mercy killing, like a tanto
He should have mentioned though, that it canceled armors AS THEY WERE before gunpowder weapons.
In Europe late medieval armors (covering all the body) gradually disappeared in favor of thick cuirasses able to stop bullets, but consequently not covering the entire body because of how heavy they were.
And yeah, those types of armors will be around for a long time since they were basically designed FOR gunpowder warfare.
I'm not too familiar with how things evolved in Japan, but I've read that they adapted the types of cuirasses the Portugues were using, so it's no surprise some armors follwing that model would be able to stop bullets to some extent.
@@xenotypos Except those cuirasses couldnt stop bullets after a point and so where again made lighter then removed entirely in favor of lighter dragoon type cavalry that could outflank gunpowder weapon formations...since gunpowder weapons for a most of their early existence were inaccurate as fuck unless fired in a line.
@@Cryogenius333 It depends when you're thinking about when you say "after a point".
I believe it was common until the mid-17th century, and existed until the 19th century to a least extent.
But yeah as firearms evolved, armors became less and less common, that fact wasn't my point, so I agree. I was just saying the popular belief gundpowder instantly made armors obsolete just because medieval armors were abandonned is generally wrong, and I was also arguing that the way Metatron presented the bullet proof feature as a characteristic of samurai armors (if "high quality") may be misleading, despite him having clearly stated he's talking about 16th century armors. I think it was more about what the armor was made for to begin with, like in Europe (16th/17th cuirasses weren't inherently better than late medieval armors, but had a different, specialized, purpose).
I'd never heard the one about bamboo or wood samurai armor. I could see that being used by the non-noble fighters.
It's difficult to compare because, regardless of time period, European and Japanese fighting styles differed. Samurai were mounted archers who used swords as secondary weapons. Knights were all about riding at each other with long pointy things, followed by riding at each other with smashy things. Eventually, both samurai and knights ended up on foot and using smashy, cutty, or stabby weapons.
Once firearms became reliable, people had to decide if they wanted armor that blocked the bullets or if they wanted to be able to move. Metal armor that stopped bullets was heavy.
Hi metatron, you think you will enter the lingüistic war of how to pronounce the word machicolations, and on a side note could you do a video on the bizantian empire and it armors
Great video and thank
up
That European mace has flanges that concentrated the force of the blow, it's basically a can opener. Probably much better than the wooden Japanese bat.
There is one illustration that depict a Japanese flanged mace somewhat similar to the one Metatron have.
It's called 胴突:
4.bp.blogspot.com/-nREMmO-qEwU/Wt5Dntc6tHI/AAAAAAAAAxo/BgRtZ92AZBAbIL8Ylww-56JVUwR_UV7SACLcBGAs/s1600/dou%2Btsuki%2Bfrom%2Bbuki%2Bnihyaku%2Bzu.jpg
Still, a kanabo would have much more mass and much more leverage compared to a one handed mace
Maces are single handed though meaning you would not be able to put as much force into it you also have worry about missing more with a mace
And yet, maces were rarely used
Maces flanged or not are not designed to open up armor. The flanges are there to transfer blunt force better.
@@AlexanderSilver1996 Maces were widely used. Pretty much any medieval cavalryman be it light or heavy carries either a mace , hammer or axe for anti armor work.
ahhh, i see... Another excuse to wear that samurai armor.😂
ahhaha
Fuck yea if I spent 40k to a 100k on a suit of armour I would wear that every damn day haha shiddd even to work
I was looking at buying armour until I saw it was 28k just for the kabuto neckguard and facemask and up to 80k for just the breast plate 🤣
@@austinlowrance5943 u can find it for a lot cheaper if you aren't interested in actually use it in battle u know? just buy a replica for 2 or 3k
@@austinlowrance5943 check the video metatron did on that armor he spent like 6k for the kit
Hey Metatron i am a 15 year old from India. I had no interest in history before discovering your channel. your video on barbarians invoked a love for history in me. I binge watched all your videos and I found them very entertaining as well as informative. I would love to see you discussing about Indian history as our curriculum does not teach us enough about the rich and vast history of the Indian subcontinent. I am sure even many others would love to learn Indian history, especially ancient India. I hope you will see this comment and react to this accordingly.
“Bye bye Samurai”
Akuuuuu
The Tlingit of Southeast Alaska used wood armor to reasonable effect even against the Russians. You use what you have. I'd love to see coverage of the more sophisticated indigenous armors of North America, as opposed to all the focus on the Central and South American empires.
To be fair, Tsarist troops were not the best
@@jonathanwells223 It doesn't matter if, on balance, they weren't "that good". Individuals vary a lot in skill, strength and speed. Plus there's simply the element of chance. Your armour still has to protect you, because in a battle, you cannot guarantee you won't be hit and you cannot predict the effectiveness of any individual opponent.
What most people don't understand about a lance in charge is, you're not just dealing with the weight and force of the man. No, you've got all the momentum of the man, armor, and horse, roughly two tons concentrated on that one little point.
It doesn't need to defeat the armor. The momentum alone would rupture organs.
Nice video Metatron. Small anecdote about half swording. When i was learning iaido, part of the first set of katas I learned contained a half sword technique in _kyuhon me - soete tsuki (添え手突き/ Hand Thrust)_ It‘s a half swording stab at the opponents stomach with the blade parallel to the ground at waist height.
Right hand in a normal grip, left hand supporting the blade midways using the thumb and index finger. It is a lunge that throws the body weight forwards on the left foot while simultaneously trying to shank the opponent with the sword as if doing a two handed thrust with a spear. Of course there are a few other variations that would work better but that’s the one I remember the best.
Paper is made of wood, he said they use paper but not wood
*ItS bIg BrAnE tImE*
Although I smiled for the meme, "paper is made of wood" is a oversemplification. Paper and wood are very different materials, you don't just cut very thin slices of wood to get a sheet of paper.
@@toropazzoide That's right, if "Ascendence of a Bookworm" has taught us something, is that making paper is quite the task.
I actually found it funnier how he said they didn't use wood or bamboo. Last time I checked, bamboo is a type of tree and wood comes from trees.
@@Riceball01 Bamboo is a grass.
Rice?
Wow this was actually a very informational video with the information put forward factually. No fanboying or anything. Thank you and great work!
The idea that Samurai were so skilled they didn't need armor goes against common sense and defeats itself. It defeats itself because if you assume Samurai were that skilled, you have to assume that ALL Samurai were that skilled. Which would mean that every time a Samurai goes into battle and has to fight another Samurai, they should expect their opponent to be equally skilled to them. Which means armor is basically a must for survival.
So, in comparison to a game that is inspired by conversations like this (For Honor), the only "Samurai" characters that even remotely makes sense to wear wooden/bamboo armor is the Nobushi and Shugoki. Kensei and Orochi should have metal armor since they are the closest representations to classic Samurai. Aramusha is technically a Ronin, so Aramusha and Shinobi should have little to no armor (Aramusha having lower quality protection than classic Samurai by far since they are shunned and dishonored).
@@SuperHongTay Realism isn't really For Honor's strong-suit anyway. lol Ubisoft could definitely have put more effort into researching the authenticity of the fighters before putting them in (at least armor/material wise). But I don't shut down opposing views, what-if scenarios, and corrections on what I thought was accurate knowledge. That's why I watch Meta and Skallgrim for additional information. The weapons are relatively easy to replicate because they are so iconic, but armor is generally so varied and mix-matched throughout history. I can kinda forgive Ubisoft for the Knights faction authenticity, but I don't know why they went with wood armor for the Samurai, and barely no armor at all for the Vikings. Hide and furs were not the reliable armor Vikings wore (plus horned helmets were an incredibly rare exception). I get that Ubisoft wanted the three original factions to look as distinct from each other as possible, but come on.
Aramusha can still get high class armor if the Shinobi clan they're tasked with protecting is wealthy enough.
but on average Aramusha should be bare bones in terms of armor.
@@SuperHongTay I completely agree. And that's what it feels like sometimes. The playerbase for For Honor constantly makes demands of Ubisoft for changes, different characters, and fixes. So, part of it is the fault of the screechy fan boys, while the other part is Ubisoft for listening too much (or not enough in some cases). For Honor can be fun, but it shouldn't be taken seriously as a source for genuine representations of historical armor/weapons. It's a fighting game first and foremost and fun must be the priority. I understand that, which is why I don't complain about it much. But it is a bit frustrating sometimes to see Ubisoft get somethings so horribly wrong. It is what it is. lol
@@chsen318 Absolutely. I would expect a Shinobi to have higher quality gear than a Ronin nearly every time. Especially since they were the eyes and ears of nobles and lords of Feudal Japan. Whether it was subterfuge, espionage, sabotage, or assassination; Shinobi were the masters of wet-work in their time. Armor still doesn't exactly ring a bell too hard for Shinobi, but Ronin (Aramusha) were dishonored to the point of poverty and public shaming. No one would openly support a Ronin by cleaning/repairing their weapons and they couldn't make stable income, so they couldn't afford proper armor. Ronin had to be completely self sufficient and couldn't regularly rely on anyone else. With the social stigma of being an outcast and their prior experience as (hopefully) a seasoned Samurai, it made them talented and reliable mercenaries though.
For honor isn't a very historically accurate game there is a reason they dont where metal armor(short supply) I dont know why people always bring the game up in conversations about historical vs battles. The game is fun first realism later
10:31 Looks a lot like the Armored Warrior from Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. Probably where they got inspiration from.
That armor is Portuguese-made and that armored guy is western European too in sekiro I think so yeah that's definitely the inspiration
Edit: so apparently that is Italian-made armor and not Portuguese
@@momir34
Actually it was made in Italy, one of the very few example of Nanban Armor that was not made in Japan.
@@lucanic4328 Oh really? Thanks for letting me know. I was like 100% sure that it was Portuguese lol
Wow! This was a very interesting video. Do you intend on continuing this series of "Medieval Weapons VS Blank"? It would be super fun if you did.
Also I didn't fully know that some types of armor could protect you from early guns back in the day. I had an idea but I hadn't been able to find proof. Thanks for showing off that aspect of test armor. I shall be sure to incorporate that into my next book in the tales of orlen seires.
Loved the video babes! So fun and hilarious! 🧡
Dumb bots
Simon The Digger who are you calling a bot?
@@KenzieScarlett you
@@fransthefox9682 boss that’s his girlfriend not some porn account but I get why you’d think so
ᚢᛚᚠᛦ I’m his girlfriend. Lol 😂
Man I love your videos.
All questions awnsered.
All comment section "buts" preempted.
👍Grate work. A grate look in to history.
Also well done on nailing the Japanese words👍
8:30 Oh so this is where in anime is trope where delinquents walk around with baseball bath with nails sticking out? Looks similar.
Sensei. Your thumbnails have you look closer and closer to nirvana each time.
Don't stop. :>
Youmu wants to get a suit of armor?
This is how I always summarized the two:
Samurai armour - you're paying for more than pure protection like better ROM, better sight and breathability, great agility and flexibility of roles for longer both on horseback and on foot, (all physique being equal) you're gonna have an easier time conserving your stamina, and etc. Greater value then the sum of its parts even if it's not as protective
Knight armour/late plate armour -does one thing and not thing extremely right: protection. Give yourself an armoured horse and you're practically a castle on legs. Major bonus points for keeping you warm quickly in the cold for winter battles even if the same heat is a detriment to you on most seasons. You get exactly what you pay for and then some.
samurai armour gives more movement in such a way as to allow for use of a bow, but otherwise would actually hinder your overall mobility more due to how its (generally) distributed weight wise i think.
@@blackdeath4eternity
Late Japanese armor as it is shown in this video is pretty much weight distributed as European plate.
What you are talking about is Oyoroi: 10th-13th century armor
But this is fail logic, European armor was better becasue it cover more body, but this is when you mounted knight in general, infantry armor was as little restrictive as Japanese one but with better protection do to better metallurgy
@@swietoslaw
Japanese armor body coverage explained:
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1
Steel metalurgy explain with sources (part 1 of 4)
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
@@lucanic4328 Lol and what that suppose to prove? Japanese did have worst metallurgy and its fact, that's why best breastplate and helmets were European. And about cover as I say European not full plate is not more restrictive. And btw face mask are debated if they really were used in combat becasue of how they were worn would not really be good protection
ThegnThrand did this very test a few years back, tested both the "tatami" style armor as well as a set more like what you have against stone/bronze/iron/medieval era weapons.
More than mobility I reckon that climate had more to do with armor design.
At least for the tosei gosoku I disagree - if you look at European armies from the mid-to-late-16th century they also moved away from full plate even though they obviously had the tech to make it. While it was great in 15th century warfare, the advancements in firearms (and other changes in warfare) meant you had big diminishing returns from adding extra armor to parts which weren't likely to get shot. Most soldiers by then just wore a cuirass and helmet which is extremely light compared to anything a century ago even for regular soldiers. Even the more heavily armored mercenaries like the Black Riders were noticeably less armored than a knight in Maximillian, but it didn't matter if their limbs had big gaps in plate if the odds of getting hit there were comparatively small. So for the Japanese their reasoning for incomplete coverage was probably the same - mobility, cost, and diminishing returns.
not really. unless you're dealing with temperature extremes most people just 'tough it out' for the duration of a battle.
it must be said, though, that geography did play a fairly big role in japanese armor in the sense that native japanese iron is of very poor quality (as pulled from the ground, not a commentary on japense smithing skill), high quality steel had to be imported, which limited their armor technology somewhat.
@@petriew2018
I don't think it's as easy as "toughing it out".
There is more to wearing the armor than merely battle. There are also long marches, patrols and the like. Across the world, most armors were as light and as skimpy as the soldiers could reliably get away with.... precisely because exhaustion is a thing. Ok, cost was an issue too, but we're talking about upper class armors, so it's a moot point. Well, jousting armors and the like would be an exception.
And the poor quality of iron ore is vastly overblown in most discussions.
It's the smelting and smithing techniques are where the most relevant differences occur, when it comes to the material.
Japanese were perfectly capable of making chain shirts, yet there are plenty of spots on the average armor of every period where there is nothing but simple cloth covering the person. That indicates to me a concern for comfort rather than any other concerns.
@@Slavic_Goblin no, it pretty much is. If the protection offered is worth the discomfort, people just get used to it because, well, that's just the sane thing to do. All the people who choose comfort over safety wind up dead before they can influence armor technology.
@@petriew2018
So, basically you agree that they took the most comfortable option they could reliably get away with. Key bit "reliably get away with".
Cause most of the time a knight wore armor wasn't in a battle.
If it's indeed as you say, then explain why jousting armors weren't used on battlefields? Why, as soon as a lighter version of an armors components that offered comparable protection came along, that's the version everyone started to use.
Why sode on a Japanese set of armor get smaller as time progresses?
Love how your armor was clinking and clanking :D Great channel.
Stone age leg wraps where found in Ireland (in the 1920s?) Made from birch bark and strips of oak. Ice mummy Utsy had something like that
I read mummy as in mom and I got so confused by your comment I think I fried half my neurons
The "point" is that armor is good at its job. Modern armorers and weapons makers have done a good job replicating and testing these weapons and armors. They work. Some can't be replicated. And experience/training can only be approximated.
00:52 - What being invaded in Dark Souls feels like.
One thing I find very interesting is the invention and use of the lance. Despite spears and horses being used in many cultures throughout history, the use of lances are comparatively rare. Maybe it had to be a perfect storm of horses, stirrups and highly trained specialized soldiers, that made the lance an effective weapon.
Great video! I was about to completely rip this video, but it was well done! One thing that you missed, though everyone does, is lacquer. Most people think it’s just simply something to protect against the elements, but it’s not. David Thatcher, to whom I’ve spoken with to some lengths, is a renown katchushi, says that lacquer itself is armour. I know this is going to sound very cringe inducing but the mixtures are trade secrets, and when they harden many are akin to ceramics.
Also the Japanese were using iron plate armour in the year 300 predating the Samurai from which they got directly from the Koreans. Tankō is a copy of the Korean armour, and sometimes just a direct import. Which makes sense cause the Yamato (Japan’s leading clan/government) was allied with one of the Korean kingdoms at the time.
Nice to see your comment here, i've been following both your instagram and youtube pages for some time now. I find your claim about lacquer interesting, I've visited David Thatcher website before and he clearly understands and mastered the work, but I wonder how much actual protection it would give since its only superficial and would not change the overall structure of the armor.
@@rafaelomansan we’re talking many many layers, and some of the inner layers would have that mixture I talked about that would harden into a ceramic. We use ceramics at times in out bullet resistant armour today. I do have a interview that will be on the channel with Mr. Thatcher. Possible that I might do a strength test involving this lacquer compound. It really is fascinating to think about.
Your videos are amazing. Please keep them up, I learn a massive amount from them.
I love how this channel gets gradually more meme.
Lol, so true
I always thought the misunderstanding of Samurai Armour being weak was that some of the more colourful variants look like they're made out of paracord.. Especially the ones with the flat square pauldrons. It just looks like a bunch of randomly dyed rope was knitted together to make a piece of armour that would either fall apart with a cut to the rope, or wouldn't stop it if you tried to cut it. (I know fully well that the armour would stop it though, otherwise no one would waste their time on it)
10:25 Considering another word for an indentation or engraving is a proof, is this where the term 'bulletproof' derives from?
Not only armor, but cannon, firearms of all sorts (at least from Royal manufacturies ) recived 'proof marks.' Obviously a derivation of proved.
yes. in the early renaissance period armor makers would quite literally shoot their armor with a pistol so the buyer could see the dent and know it was 'bullet proofed'
admittedly pistols of the time were laughably ineffective and there was no standard for the size of the powder charge used, so that wasn't quite the quality control naive buyers may have believed, which puts a fun spin on the term.
13:00 As a guy who has fallen off a horse and survived a low speed motorcycle crash. I don't think it matters so much that the armor can block an archibus ball. If you're getting rammed by a lance at full speed, you're on the ground and you're not in good shape. Maybe you're not dead, but you're probably out of the battle.
Although you have a mismatch with the helmet and breastplate, you look so cool in that armor! As much as I like Japanese armors, there is just something magnificent about white steel...
That intro music tho! I loved that song in Dragon Age! (In Uthenera, as sung by Leliana in Dragon Age Origins.)
i guess the lance is more likela to penetrate in full charge - unlike the balls fired from the gun which are round, the lance concentrates the force in a pointy point amplyfing the force. however it can glance off and ofc if the samurai can sidestep and ofc just fallign backward will take out quite some force from the lance. if the samurai were pinned against a wall my guess is it would penetrate both sides of the armor and get stuck in the wall
A lance charge also has a massive advantage of sheer weight behind the impact since you have all the mass of both the rider, his horse and all the armour both are wearing, honestly outside of a miracle that thing IS going through any combat viable armour, there is a reason that jousting armour was so impractically thick and heavy.
the "lets use something blunt" is an idea thats probably older than the wheel("or lets use something round to roll it" idea)
No matter how well armored a Samurai was, his horse would still be vulnerable to early firearms. ... Same goes for European heavy cavalry.
You do realize that shooting a war horse won’t necessarily kill it right? Not to mention that European heavy cavalry had armor for their horses too.
@@robertgiggie6366 - You can't realistically expect any horse to absorb a volley of musket balls and keep going like nothing happened. Meanwhile, I've never heard of bulletproof horse armor. It would have to be very heavy, which would slow down and tire the horses.
I am loving this series! Definitely a great subject(?) to study!
Yes, but only if Tom Cruise dawns the armor of a Samurai, Daniel-San
You rock, Metatron. I'm curious about what you think about boar tusk helmets like the Sea People and Mycinaen used. I've even seen some with cheek quards. What might be the pros and cons versus the bronze helms of the day (weight, comfort, protection, ease of manufacture, availability of materials, etc.), or even with Greek or Roman bronze and steel helms. Or whatever you think might be interesting about this topic, e.g. other helms of similar materials with different peoples and ages, etc. It also might be cool to see you do some tests; I can picture boar tusks exploding under the force of your mighty blow.🤣
BTW, my wife and I loved your girlfriend's viking makeup. We gave it a thumbs up and subscribed. We also purchased some Viking jewelry. Sweet!
Funny, the samurai in old period prefer the cut over the thrust when using sword, even when dealing with armour. But when edo period reaching it's end, when armour combat no longer exist, then the techniques transition rapidly to focus more on the thrust (The biggest example is Tennen Rishin Ryu, came directly from Kashima Shinto Ryu. They still kept the traditional practice weapons like very thicc and almost straight bokuto but alot of their katas contain the thrust, something that wasn't exist in Shinto schools)
Don't know where you got that idea we see form weapons at a time such as daggers specifically for armored combat were common and thrust
Focus, even swords at that time had pointier tips then later edo ones, schools such Yagyū Shingan-ryū which derived from school specifically design for the Battlefield show off more thrust than cuts in armor,Tennen focus more on the thrust in the armor section from what I seen, I question shinto protection for the neck was not uncommon even for common foot soldiers I know lots of shcool kata were lost over time or change during edo,also the armored they show-off in the video you can find on RUclips Parts like the sode
Would have been outdated long before sengoku period and they're not even wearing the leg armor properly.
Edit: wait sorry I'm thinking of another shinto ryu.
@@eagle162 because when i look at japanese sword evolution through out era, i noticed the when they transitioned from the Tachi to Uchigatana then Katana, the sword shape was not just shorter, but getting straighter over time. There were some noticable differences between nihonto made in Early mid edo period compare to late edo period, because before transitioning to Meiji era, the katana looks to me is almost straight and only have a small sori
Also it's about how samurai practice swordmanship in peace time too. I keep questioning why the shinai used in today's kendo is not curve like the katana but straight. It's totally possible to make it curve (just look at bamboo naginata) but why they chose not to. The reason can't be "it's more work to make" because that's not how the japs do stuffs. So i think the reason why the 4 pieces straight shinai was invented to replace Yagyu Shinkage Ryu fukuro shinai was because of rapid techniques transition in Edo period. Fukuro Shinai is straight, but too weak to withstand a thrust attack because it used to practice Yagyu Shinkage ryu techniques (which also don't have any thrust technique) so the 4 pieces shinai was born to serve that purpose because despite the fact alot of bokuto in that time was kinda straight, it's too dangerous to practice full contact with
The drawings are lovely!
Can't wait to see all of the weapons experts in the comment section.
The earliest gunpowder formulas were completely pulverized. However on transport to the battlefield the ingredients separated. Hence a dangerous remixing was necessary. Later in Europe people began making "corned" powder. They moistened the pulverized ingredients. Form them into flat cakes. Dry the sheets, break them carefully & then tumbled the grains with graphite powder. It was sorted into cannon powder, musket powder, pistol powder & priming powder.
In a question whatever a samurai armour would work well against European weaponry, my biggest concern would be a lance. I honestly can't imagine they would work well against lances considering how European armours have changed after the development of lance rests.
Edit: Nevermind, you actually addressed that point. Good analysis as always.
Both sides armour and weapons counter each other, the issue would be the Europeans generally at this point are starting to become centralised states, while Japan is still divided into clans.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Not exactly though. Japanese armour from what I can see lacks elements to withstand the impact that could be delivered by a lance.
But your point is actually even better than the mine about lances.
With the centralisation of the European kingdoms came professional armies. Combine that with the sheer variety of weaponry and tactics presented by European armies and Japanese armies would be in some serious trouble.
To be honest it's not a fair comparison. Japan is just a bunch of islands while Europe is a whole continent full of different cultures.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 yeah the lance could be trouble but yet again a lance hits you no matter what your wearing your going to hurt badly after that.
But like you and i said the issue is Japan is one nation, divided by warring clans, while Europe at this time was starting to become nation states with standing armies emerging. not a fair comparison really.
If a lance can breakthrough plate (there are records of it ) it can certainly lunch through samurai armour but it I'm duel it would be difficult unless the samurai charges back
@@El-Silver Besides the problem with penetrating armour, lances have a tendency of sliding on the breastplate into weak spots like armpits and throat. That's why European armours were reinforced in those areas since the mid-XIV century.
As for a duel... well it depends what kind of duel it is. There are dozens of different possible setups.
That Kanabo looks gorgeous!
Honestly, when I look at the arm protection of your armour I'm pretty sure that breaking one of your arms with a good polearm or even a longsword hit shouldn't be too hard.
I am pretty sure you didn't consider the mobility it offered it to Samurai and his entire-lifetime training to deal with things like this.....knowing very well limitation of his armour and your stupidity would allow him to close the distance in matter of seconds.
I can guarantee you death with 1 hit if you allow him to close the distance cuz decapitation is one of the favourite technique of samurai and there are multiple ways to achieve it......you can call samurai one of masters of decapitation in Middle-century world judging by amount of techniques and scholary literature they had about it.
You may not know it but in the end SAMURAI is going to be paid on basis of quality of head he bought to his masters and decapitating cut was its criteria....
@@UsmanSiddiq1 You're trolling... right?
ALPHA GHOST how do you decapitate someone in plate armor🤨
@@kamilszadkowski8864 I hope so
@@barneybeartilde9601 Dude unlike popular belief Helmets are not fixed on Knights face and you can even use your blade during attack to bump it little upwards and slice the curved blade against his neck.....judging by Katana blade geometry he will be done in matter of seconds
Question: You do a lot of videos about Japan, any chance you would ever do one about pre Japanese Okinawa?
I've been wondering, what are the parts of the helmet that curl back on each side for? Also I've noticed Japanese helmets can have a lot of decorative elements which stick out in all sorts of places which seems to contrast with western helmets, do these not create a sort of disadvantage in that your opponent could manipulate your movements by hooking onto them etc?
ᚻᛁᚱᚹᚢᛚᚠ if a slash comes towards the face the fukigaeshi will stop it. Think how the brim of a morion or cabasset works :)
@@JapanatWar Ahh I see, I can kind of see how that would work. Although it still looks as if it would be easy to get your blade caught between the dome and the fukigaeshi rather than sliding off the side of the helmet which I assume would be a bad thing for the wearer, wouldn't it? Or is this possibility negligible?
ᚻᛁᚱᚹᚢᛚᚠ It would be very rare for that to happen and at that point you as the defender should have already moved in with your tanto to get into the gaps of his armour.
@@JapanatWar Ah fair enough!
Metatron made a video about that years ago. When you see a very fancy helmet with a lot of large decorations everywhere, it wasn't used un combat, only to show off so everyone will see your rank and your wealth when you do ceremony or feast
I love that art in the background, raf.
medieval weapons versus samurai armour?
*laughs in matchlock kachi and British longbowmen*
Lmao
Longbows could barely penetrate rivetted padded mail at more than a docen metres, it is laughably bad at penetrating brigantines or plate
@@juanlulourido548 This - Todd's Workshop tested them a few months back and they could barely dent a plate cuirass. Tosei gosoku isn't quite as good, but it's still close enough that at worst the arrows would make a slightly deeper dent.
@@juanlulourido548 incorrect, longbows does have the force to penetrate mail with gambeson under it, same story with spears and daggers
@@Bluglojo
I think his "rivetted padded mail" might be a brigandine or lamelar which both historically and in testing have been shown to be quite effective against arrows of all sorts.
Didn’t Samurai have chain mail called “kusari”?
I’ve heard shinobi/ninja had kusari/small plate armor. Would that compensate the gaps?
Somewhere in an Alternate Universe:
Medieval Knight: ORAORAORAORAORA
----->OOOOOOOORRAA
Samurai: *AD MORTEM INIMICUS*
I would be down for watching you show how to properly use a nagamiki.
Watched skallagrim use one and he really struggled to get a decent cut
What is this nonsense? Professional soldiers using good armor? Sounds completely crazy if you ask me. /S
I think that's why no one is asking you
Hello Metatron! I would like if you talked about the medieval middle east from the 5th century to the 15th century, just like what you did with the crusaders a full documentary! I find it rather weird that I can't find anything about the medieval middle east, I don't know what type of armor they wore or what weapons they used. I only know that they used a weapon named the Saif or Shamshir. it's seems people are more interested in Medieval Europe. I'd appreciate it if you would talk about the Medieval Middle East.
Did knights ever use early firearms like samurai did? I don't trust Google.
In later periods, im sure they did at first. But the era of guns was the end of the full armored knights.
Kinda, even as early as the late 1300's "primitive" firearms where already in semi-wide use across Europe and by the mid 1400's cannons where already the primary siege weapon, although probably not as as wide spread as in Japan since by the time Oda made them popular the advancement of technology itself had made them far easier and cheaper to make.
Acording to Wikipedia "The first recorded use of gunpowder weapons in Europe was in 1331 when two mounted German *knights* attacked Cividale del Friuli with gunpowder weapons" so Yee
I'd definitely have to pass on the arquebus. Hitting anything beyond 10-20 yards, particularly when there's a bunch of people around trying to kill you, was more a matter of luck than anything. That's if it even went off in the first place. Between that and the wildly inconsistent quality of the powder, shot, and construction of the barrel, they were only slightly more dangerous for the person being shot at than the person doing the shooting. Though I do imagine the psychological effect was not insignificant. Anyway, very neat video sir.
Metatron, you said that you were a teacher. Do you teach high school or university?
private language teacher i think
Few years ago he taught in high school iirc, today I don't know, perhaps private like nobleman said.
That would make sense cause he’s fluent in multiple languages
Nice video metatron :)
Μeanwhile in ancient Greece: Full body armour since 1500 BC.... Before anyone else in history...
Cries in Dendra Panoply. :-(
They do not have fully armored
Like mediwal knight
Dude they were wearing bronze Barrel as armour which was absolutely useless for anything cuz doesn't offer full protection but its 30 kg weight limit mobility like crazy and armies of time were just walking up to barrel men and destroy his legs with spear......then when he is on ground plunge a spear to his head or underside opening of barrel.
Full body armor is a bit of a stretch, Greeks did not wear braces, and dedicated leg armor, mostly a helmet, cuirass, and shin armor. Full body armor would extend to the arms, the hands, the feet (they only wore sandals), etc.
I think it is difficult to compare precisely because of the differences, but in the field of to see advantages and disadvantages
The mon is getting a little worn, no ?
He probably did that on purpose.
4:20 that argument about not wearing armor for mobility worked out really well for the chinese during the boxer rebellion. The monks thought their bodies were strong enough to withstand bullets. The plan was so effective that that was the last boxer rebellion.
10:25 wait a minute!!!! its known that late european armor makers "tested" the armors against gunfire but with light powder charges to claim that their armor was bulletproof in order to sell it. surely japanese makers must have done so too. accounting for this fact, and the inconsistency of firearms of the period, the fact that an armor has stopped one bullet doesnt make it "bulletproof" or as you say "proof", it only means that that armor was able to stop that particular bullet with that particular charge. who knows maybe a couple of grains more in powder or a different type of projectile would make the same so called "proven" armor innefective. with this Im saying that the fact that some rich nobleman is using a top of the line "test" armor, doesnt necesarily mean that he would survive the next shot to the chest he recieves.
I know that in the variois wars of the ottoman empire, where matchlocks quickly became the standard arm of line infantry armour became ineffective to the point where it was swiftly reduced only to mounted heavy lancers, and even for them eventually just a chestplate and helmet.
The proofing indeed seems bogus, save for extremely heavy, and thus partial, or immobile armours.
I don't remember the actual video but a couple years ago i used one of your videos as a source for a school project. i just wanna say thanks
Regarding gun resistance, Japanese guns had both of smaller caliber and smaller powder charge than most European guns of 16th and 17th century, so armor being "bulletproof" against Japanese guns would not make it automatically as effective against European guns.
Please also do a Medieval Armor vs Samurai Weapons
WHAT ABOUT PASTA!!!!!
Depends, you mean the famous ravioli lamellar armor or full lasagna plate armor?
@@claudiussmith8798 the on you put with Italian blood to create a nuclear bomb
maybe a similar video about Hussar vs Samurai? I think it would be fun to watch and I wonder what would you have to say about it :)
I love how the title implies that "Medieval" is a place rather than a time period.
Yeah people don't always realize Medieval doesn't apply just to Europe.
Nah you can still read it as weapons of the medieval era, vs japanese samurai armor.
It's up to the individual to see it whatever way they see it.
But I get what you mean, cause it looks like they are refering to it as the place the weapons come from due to the use of "Japanese" for the armor.
@@butsmash But Samurai armor is also from the medieval era, that's the thing.
When will you do a video ,African vs Knight ?
Need to beat the samurai? Just send over some landsknechts.
well you know i have to agree about that
if people ask knights vs samurai i still think samurai would win
but i think landsknechts is most likely to win against samurai
Funnily enough, through the 16th and early 17th century all over Asia, Japanese mercenaries were famous and sought after especially by European powers like Spain and the VOC. They had a very good reputation to be extremely effective but occasionally unruly soldiers
@@Ivnnih2774 ironically a knight would just own a samurai due to better equipment, especially the armor, but the samurai would probably fair so much better against a landsknechts due to better mobility.
@@petriew2018 one huge factor...
guns, its the weapon that cause heavy cavalry obsolete several times knights beaten up by undisciplined peasant armed with crude spear and arquebus
@@Ivnnih2774 yeah, if you're comparing a samurai with a gun to a knight without i don't know why you're wasting anyone's time because that's just a stupid comparison from the get go... you're not actually comparing them on anything close to an even footing, you're just trying to justify a preconceived opinion.
Another great advantage is the hand and a half bastard sword with those deadly murder strokes or using a shield with a mace or hammer. Basically adding another massive layer to the European armor. Also a great weapon having used a heater shield with the point out facing my fist so I can punch with it while using it to cover or impede their attacks/sight as I simultaneously go for an opening. I don’t frankly know much about the samurai, but I haven’t really seen them utilize shields and that alone makes the knight even more likely to edge out a constant victory.
5’4 120lb weeb with a crude sharpened yard stick vs 6’4 220lb professional warrior with experience fighting other warriors as opposed to the serfs that the weeb was designed to slaughter.
Is this English?
6’4 in medieval times? Man would have been a giant. If i recall correctly, average Europeans were 5’7” to 5’9”. While average Japanese men were 5’2” to 5’4”. Still a sizable difference but not an entire foot. Also both were designed to kill peasants, but routinely fought professional warriors.
Wait is this guy trying to say that samurai were weak and that some oversized body building knight would be better than a samurai ? I mean if u put it that way then I guess but that is a huge difference
BTW, I'm digging your suit!
So we have a Japanese geek talking about how superior Japanese armor is to Western Armor and weapons?
Well, it's like he says. It's up to the skill and class of the person you are fighting. I Highly doubt that beautiful
armor could stand up to some of the more violent hand canons and such but yeah whatever. lol
He doesn't say anywhere in the video that Japanese armor is superior to western armor or weapons.
@@cliff7641 Does he need to say it for it to be there?
@@valentine_puppy I certainly didn't get that impression watching the video. It makes me seriously wonder if you even watched the video. He makes the case that it's roughly comparable in many ways in its designed purpose, and lists a couple of weapons (the Pole Axe and the Lance) that he thinks would be very effective against Japanese armor. At no point does he even imply that it's "superior" to western armor.
@@cliff7641 Let me ask you this, Does he at any point give the merits of European armor to the same weapons? I know this isn't strictly an armor to armor video. However, I would contend that he did feature a person wearing European armor. Albeit for humor. He was also talking about European Weapons. Would not someone whom is talking about European weapons not mention or bring up the capabilities of the European armor to defend against these weapons as a form of shorthand comparison so we the viewer can understand the relevance to the armor presented?
Meaning, If weapon A can damage full plate then in Japan weapon A can do damage B? I think that's fair is it not? The answer is of course its fair. Also, there are MANY more weapons that would be effective against 16th Century Japanese Armor that European Armor figured out. For instance Long Bow Bodkin shot medium range with 100 pound draw weight and impact with 145 joules of force would do a job on any part not center mass. Perhaps the flail or other such weapons. See what i mean?
Last thing, when he said WE when using Japanese words. It made it sound or made an impression that he cares more for Japanese things than Western ones. When i say WE say this or WE say that. I am not using that form in any other context than to include myself and a bias there of. Bias I remind you isn't strictly bad in the word but how one uses it in a sentence that indicates its intended meaning. At least, in a first impression.
@@valentine_puppy 'does he need to say it for it to be there'
yes, yes he does. Because if he doesn't say it he didn't say it.
the reason he made this video was because of the wide preconception that japanese armor is inherently inferior to european armor, which is not the case.
To wear effectively Yoroi, the weight should be well balanced on the shoulders AND the hips. That's whats the "obi" is for. You also need to adjust those kote. I'm sure you know that wearing any armor is more than just putting it on yourself.
Why is the dude wearing a Darth vader helm?
Sorry for the bad a joke
even if the armor could withstand the force generated by the impact of a lance in full charge, that would definitely kick back the opponent. it's not like that samurai is cemented in place. so you have anyway much more diverse trauma with stopping power regarding the ability to stay in combat and keep fighting
ahhhhhh first
good for you
Not quite sure anyone cares
@@Aerostarm Hey atleast the person saying first, actually was first. :P
Interesting question! Interesting video!