I really liked your video on medieval peasant food with that food historian lady. Some of that stuff looked like something you'd get at a fancy restaurant. Really beats the "peasants either ate grey, tasteless gruel or starved" stereotype.
Not sure if you guys gives a shit but if you guys are stoned like me during the covid times you can watch all the latest series on instaflixxer. Have been binge watching with my girlfriend during the lockdown xD
@Ben Ivin Corsica was bought (blackmailed) by the French from the Genoese not long before Napoleon was born, and the Corsican language is closely related to Central Italian languages such as Tuscan, which is the base for Standard Italian
I kept seeing Metatron, Shadiversity and Skallagram refs on each other's channels, recently Skallagram ref on Lindybiege's, now I'm seeing a Lindybiege ref on Metatron's. XD
@@OtakuAiram church latin or vulgar latin is what most people recognize. veni, vini, vici, julius caesars famous quote, in church latin, would be pronounced as: ven-ee, vee-nee, vee-chee. in classical latin, the v made the w sound and the c made the k sound, so historically it would've been pronounced wen-ee, weenie, wee-key
@@TheLordpeanuts huehuehue he said "weenie". But jokes aside, thanks for the clarification because I was wondering what was up with the different pronounciations.
Yeah, his French accent isn't nearly as good as his English. At times, it almost sounded like he was speaking German. But, I can't be too hard on him since I only speak English fluently can barely speak Mandarin, and know a smattering of French and Japanese; this is compared to his Italian, Latin, French, Japanese, and Mandarin.
His accent is there but clearly not as thick as most people when they're trying to speak it, je le dit en connaissance de cause (I'm saying this from experience).
Bret Alvarez and how the spanish smashed the french every time they fought. I mean, in Bicocca the spanish didn’t suffer any casualties whatsoever while killing 3000 swiss troops.
In occurrence 2: Arrowheads exploding against armor also makes a tremendous noise. I expect that a knight's direct retinue would also be fairly well equipped to deal with the physicality of the battlefield, but the sound and constant pelting of small shrapnel would almost certainly have a psychological impact.
@@irontemplar6222 I would tend to agree on that point. As long as you're not getting injured, there wouldn't be clear physical signs of trauma for a veteran of battle. However, that doesn't really affect the mental state of soldiers who survive repeated bombardment. In the moment they might do okay, they might not, and there would have been little chance to tell.
@@christopherpurches2774 their are reports of soldier who during drumrole bombardments complaining that it sometimes disturbed their sleep. I think most were probably fine
@@irontemplar6222 and you may be right. 20th century warfare would give the impression that repeated exposure to such stimulus causes confusion and erratic behavior upon reexposure and can generate PTSD as a long term consequence. That is more where my speculation was coming from.
Easy answer: It depends of the armor. If it’s heat treated carbon steel armor then you can’t, you are not gonna penetrate that thing even at point blank with any medieval projectile weapon. Save for the obvious exception of a pommel.
@@vonrosphe3098 Canons were not meant for penetrations until later ironclade early battleship age. Before that you had high explosive shots (early 19th century) and full or 'hollow' cannonballs that were meant to shatter the target, which is not considered 'penetration', which involves concentrating the impact force on a small area. To put it simply, a medieval cannonball works like a big pommel
No. Stuff like certain big dart launcher can kebab high quality steel plate with ease. It is possible to get through high quality steel plate at mostly point blank range (not talking about missiles post perforation efficacy). Medieval, my definition of it end is around 16th century, saw introduction of relatively potent firearms.
This video made me think about something in regards to the law that had Englishmen practicing the longbow every Sunday. I was thinking about how the people in general would have approached handling this and it occurred to me not every person is going to have targets set up at home easily, yes most people could have something even if it was a nearby tree or something within walking distance. At this point it is something for I would imagine most people that would be more then just nipping into the back garden, so your heading off to practice at a good spot nearby when you run into Bob and John, they are both going too and have their sons with them who are of age too. Now this has become a social situation the lads take some food and drink, they try and make it fun they set up some targets they see who is the better shot among them, yes it is legally required practice but Humans are amazing at coping with situations and turn something thats a chore into fun all the time. So when Tom the local sheriff or equivalent stops by to the usual practice spot he finds a few families practicing quite happily having a laugh and he stops catches up on the gossip and has a few shots himself before ticking them off the list and moving on with a slice of cheese he cheekily swiped off Bob for being drunk in the street the other day rather then have to fine him as they grew up together. I could see some villages taking this even further, the local mayor with permission of a local lord keen to encourage this behavior and some small funds sets up an archery range in the village square and while Sunday is the day of rest people cook a load of food and bring their families and they make it a village event with prizes for the best shot in the village each week. The local lord sometimes even attends quite proud that his local archers are some of the best around much better then lord so and so's over in the next valley. These ideas just occurred to me and I would love to see some exploration of this, how the people handled this in a day to day fashion. Humanity has always been good at making the best of a bad or bring situation, we are creatures of survival and social creatures at that. Might make for an interesting video. :) Either way thank you for this one Metatron, a pleasure as always.
This law is a catalyst. If you are told to do something every Sunday and you see your friends coming along and everyone is having fun, they'll probably start doing it twice a week, maybe even three times and so forth.
Fellow Englishman here...yes it is true that a law was passed that for all 'men of age' it was mandatory to practice archery on a Sunday. The idea behind this was that if a war broke out that the King had a ready supply of archers that could be conscripted into the army. Archery was also a somewhat of a pastime and hobby for most so they would have had access to a bow and practiced in their backyard, local field, town center etc.
One thing I'd love to know is how dangerous were arrows and melee hits that did NOT penetrate armor. Say, if a few arrows hit your head, even if none of them penetrate your helmet, would the concussion be debilitating? Would a knight be able to keep fighting after being hit by a hundred arrows, even if none of them penetrate the armor? Modern reenactors often say that being hit by blunt arrows from weak bows is 'quite unpleasant', I bet being hit by the real stuff from 100+ pound bows would be even moreso. The question is, can you wear down a knight or knock them out without ever drawing blood? And if so, how often did it happen, was it significant on a battlefield? How effective is "armor that can't be penetrated by arrows" at keeping you alive and battle capable.
It was one of my thought also, when you see the shockwave behind the armor from the impact, after quite a lot you could sustain internal damage. a good example, are people running marathons, one of the parameters they have to take into account is the shockwave they get from there feets hitting the ground that goes through the body, one of this shockwave is nothing for a normal person but 10 000 or more in a short period can make you uncomfortable to the point that you can throw up, if you are not well trained.
9:40 I just want to point out that although we naturally assume that inventions and discoveries like that was a result of previous failure, its not necessarily the case. Just as we test armour and look for weakspots today, they did as well. They made armour upgrades to prevent injury. That doesnt automatically mean that someone earlier had to sustain that particular injury, even if that is most often the case. In this particular case its probably difficult to draw accurate conclusions without a high speed camera or extensive testing though and probably result of experience as you said.
It's always a bit of both. They can improve the parts on wich they notice a weak point beofrehand, but sometimes things go unexpected and new problems arise. It's not necesseraly failure per say if an arrowhead fly off an armor to the next guy's neck, the armor of the target DID do the job properly. New improvments can then occur from the unlucky story being told, locally, for next time. Then it end up being copied elsewhere. "And the cycle of theory, practice and unexpected discoveries goes on as always."
I was also very surprised by how easily that arrow penetrated those rings. It made me realize that a hail of arrows was bound to hit some areas that are not covered by plate. I’m glad you brought it up. I’ve seen a lot of lower power bows (49-80 lb draw weight) not make it through mail & game son.
I love the quality of this video. It feels like I was watching something on the History Channel. If that was the goal, you aced it! The fluid ad transitions were the cerry on top. Everything was so professional! How did I only discover you after Skall, Shad, and even Joerg!?
Long Time viewer, first time poster. I just wanted to thank you for recommending Modern History TV. I've gathered quite the collection of Historical Channel subscriptions now and MHTV is a excellent addition. I think it's wonderful how you guys pool together your resources and knowledge in a commendably civil manner, even if you don't always agree with each other. It's a welcome change of pace from the toxicity that can plague other fandoms. Chad, Loyd, Mat, Tod, Errant and a few I'm forgetting off the top of my head, you've all helped to clarify and bring to life the arms, armor and lifestyles of Great Warriors from History. I thank you and will drop your name on MHTV to let him know where the recommendation came from.
1:57 "First, that's scary." Yeah, imagine using mail for centuries with gambeson as an effective counter to arrows and suddenly longbows and metal crossbows show up that can negate that to a degree. That would be pretty terrifying for the average soldier. Almost akin to how knights in full plate must have felt when the arquebus showed up.
Hollywood: Plate armor? Protection? That doesn´t exist, everyone dies from a single shoot or cut, everytime. Metatron, Shadiversity and others: SIGH...
Great video Metatron! Really raised some excellent points. I saw a video about Henry V getting an arrow wound in his face. Tod’s & your video made me realise there is a good chance it was a deliberately aimed shot, rather than the random shot it’s often portrayed as.
Sooooo happy Jason got a shout out. Followed my man and his crew for over a year and Metatron is right, he does fantastically educating videos that are beautifully shot, excellently executed and a superb sound quality I might add.
Modern rigid body armors often have a thick coating on top to do the same thing because bullets hitting hard armor will often fragment and spray little pieces of lead and copper in every direction - probably not enough to kill you, but definitely enough to give you a nasty injury.
One thing occurred to me while watching this video. If the arrow were to hit an articulated joint on the later plate armor, it could prevent that joint from moving if the dent was deep enough or in the wrong place. This would result in restricted mobility for the man at arms or knight, thus hurting his fighting capacity even if it doesn't actually hurt him.
What I'd like to see is some videos on the Vlachs/Romanians of the middle ages, which were reputed as great archers in their part of the world and were known to have used poisoned arrows as attested by various chronicles of the time. For example, during the Third Crusade they have constantly harassed the army of Barbarossa as he was making his way towards Constantinople, springing forth from the woods and mountain passes and peppering the crusaders with poisoned arrows, using the terrain to their advantage (Ansbertus, ed. Chroust, 27-28 (transl. Loud, 60; FLHB III, 253); Historia peregrinorum, ed. Chroust,136-138 (FLHB III, 228-230); Tageno, 509 (transl. Loud, 151)). I am curious how effective those poisoned arrows could have been against the crusaders. Perhaps the Vlachs targeted their horses? The Greek version of the Chronicle of Morea contains an account of the Battle of Adrianople (where Baldwin was taken prisoner) which describes the Cumans in Caloian's army shooting at the enemies' horses: 'Now, the Franks expected to give them battle with spears and swords, as they were accustomed to do. But the Cumans fled and did not come close to them; they only shot arrows at them with their bows and they let loose so many that they killed them; for the chargers perished, the knights fell.' (v. 1150-1156 (Camariano 1944, 357-358, 360-361; ed. Lurier, 100; Shawcross 2009, 342, 349; FHDR IV, 170/171). A video on shooting horses would also be interesting.
While in the topic, make something for ancient and early medieval archers and skirmishers. People seem to think they all operated like the English longbowmen, firing volleys from a far corner of the battlefield with high power long range weapons.
Actually they mention in the video that everything suggests the longbowmen fired at close range horizontally. Personally I'd be really curious as to why slingers who were so prominent during antiquity vanishes. Shouldn't their shots be more similar to a mace, thus able to result in concussions? Were there slingstones shaped like maceheads who would focus their force on a few specific points?
M. Vipsanius Agrippa I think it’s probably too difficult to sling a stone hard enough to damage someone in plate armor or even good padded armor. That’s why slings fell out of military use by the early medieval period
What I found really interesting in that test was the arrowhead actually heating up from the immense kinetic energy of the impact. Imagine being a foot soldier in the front line and some stray piece of hot metal hits you in the face, gets stuck in your clothing, etc. Definitely something that might throw you off in the moment.
Maybe but modern day soldiers deal with brass flying into their shirts, necks, and arms that burn. It can suck afterwords but in the moment it almost barley registrars.
When looking at all these analyses in terms of arrows versus plate armour, I feel it's always worth remembering that the plate armour is being treated in ideal conditions - i.e. a complete set, in pristine condition, without wear and tear, and using high quality materials. In truth, all of these are going to be highly variable. Moreover, by virtue of how expensive it is and how soldiers supply their own equipment, those in full plate would make a small minority of an army - especially those donning new, high quality, undamaged armour. I'd argue it's far likelier that even amongst the knights, many would be donning older armour (e.g. something passed down from his father) or armour that'd previously seen combat or perhaps even incomplete armour with not every single type of component present (be it due to weight or cost).
Not really ideal conditions and they intentionally didn't use the highest quality materials except for the very last arrowhead they shot. The test itself is ideal for the bow. A reasonably rigid fixed target, it's not moving, sitting at a dead on angle, shot at close range. How expensive do you think armour was to make, how much money do you believe those 'amongst knights' had? When we're talking about 1380-1390 which this armour represents we're not talking about 'older armour from a previous generation' when we're representing plate armour, not even possible. If armour was as expensive as you seem to believe it is would you intentionally keep it in poor condition?
@@7dayspking First things first, don't get me wrong - all else being equal, of course the breastplate stopped the arrow. That's it's job and why such things came into existence in the first place. As for any lack of maintenance of the armour, once again - of course - it wouldn't be intentional. Rather, due to wear and tear from being on campaign, cost, and - in the case of older armour - age. The Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415; making any armour from 1380-1390 about 25-35 years old. Now, as for the cost of armour. We actually have a decent idea about this. For instance, in 1441, Sir John Crecy purchased himself a suit of armour at £8 6s 8d for himself and at £6 for his squire. Tobias Capwell, the host in Tod's video and a respect expert in medieval armour, noted that these were not high quality armour even for the time. Rather, the finest armour would cost around £20. In contrast, a man-at-arms (who one would expect to be armoured) was paid 1s per day whilst on campaign (£1 = 20s); meaning basic quality armour cost about 100-120 days of campaigning's wage, and that's without factoring the cost for food, other equipment, and the retinue needed to maintain said armour. Moreover, a hobbler (a horseman) was only paid 6p per day (1s = 12p); meaning armour would cost a hobbler 200-240 days' wage before they could attempt presenting themselves as a man-at-arms. Lastly, spearmen were paid 2p per day; equaling 600-720 days' wage to afford a suit of armour of basic quality. Lastly, on the issue of the test being ideal conditions versus practical conditions, it is in respect to it being a single archer aiming at a single breastplate and at centre mass. In reality, it would be multiple volleys of arrows aimed at a body of men in armour; at which point some arrows would either hit less armoured areas/gaps in the armour. Hope that helps clarify my arguments.
@@evilwelshman Plate armour protects against a lot of things, including later firearms. If your armour gets damaged in battle and you don't have it repaired, you've intentionally left it in poor condition especially if it's as costly as you later claim. Would you leave your car in poor condition? I'm not putting the equivalent of 15000-50,000 dollars down based on your 'wages vs armour price' (if we ignore the flaws in your wage comparison, can you imagine calling a 50,000 dollar object today top quality?) to not look after what I've purchased. The armour represented here is based on a piece from the 1380s-1390s, it isn't representative of top quality armour in 1415. In 1380-1390 there was no such thing as an 'old' family breastplate. Hardness and quality of the armour intended to be replicated in this instance is a 630 year old piece, not brand new top quality for 1415. Not a good idea to compare the wage of a soldier to the price of armour unless we're talking strictly about professional soldiers which it's clear we aren't. Where are you getting these values for soldier wages? If a top quality car costs over a million dollars, a 500,000 dollar car is still a top quality luxury automobile (20 pounds vs 8 pounds.) and not close to representative of what a standard brand new car would cost (less than 10 x the price of that 'not high quality automobile even for the time.). If you're interested in the reality of armour prices and wages you should be looking at broad survey's for both. I'm not actually looking to pick holes but before you respond again some very basic things to consider. What they're shooting at is a breastplate, not an entire harness so rethink your analogies, do you think your average spearman wore 140 shillings of armour on them like *Sir* John Crecy? Each individual arrow in these 'volleys' has the same chance these shots did if they were shooting at a mass of still, fixed, rigid targets like this one. Don't think so one dimensionally.
@@7dayspking On the price of armour, my sources are as follows: "Arms and armour of the medieval knight" by David Edge and John Miles Paddock; and corroborated by "The Knight and the blast furnace" by Alan Williams. In terms of the soldiers' wages, these are taken from "Battle of Agincourt: sources & interpretations" by Anne Curry as well as "The road to Crecy: The English invasion of France, 1346" by Marilyn Livingstone and Morgen Witzel; indicating that the wages are going to be within that ballpark between those two periods. Out of curiosity, why would it not be a good idea to compare the wges of soliders and the price of armour unless talking strictly about professional soldiers? Even levied peasants were expected to supply their own equipment. Coming back to the topic, if you're talking about spearmen, etc then once again breastplates would not be what they'd typically be wearing. Rather, it'd be things like mail and brigandine (if at all); particularly in late 14th and early 15th century. On the subject of maintaining armour, again it is not about not bothering to look after one's equipment but the lack of means and inherent difficulty of doing so whilst on campaign - either you're rich enough to have squires and servants to do so - in which case, they would be expected to wear plate armour of reasonable quality - or you don't; in which case you were probably wearing cheaper armour as opposed to breastplate (which also typically requires someone else in order to be properly worn). As such, the overemphasis of looking at bows in relation to breastplate over all other kinds of armour creates a false impression as only a small proportion of the army would have been wearing breastplates. Lastly, once again, having a single bow aimed and fired at centre mass of a single breastplate (which is its strongest point) as in the experiment is somewhat misleading as well. When against armies, the practice would have been to fire at the mass as a whole rather than aiming for specific individuals. Basically, the criticism here is that just using a single bow and breastplate is inadequate and it would be more appropriate if they had a more completely armoured target with several archers firing in volley and looking to see where they landed. Also, when against mounted troops, there is the kinetic energy and momentum of the soldier and horse moving towards the arrow that hasn't been taken into account as well. Sorry if this comes across as slightly jumbled but you had raised multiple points that I felt were worth addressing.
@@7dayspking In case you're still interested in the topic, here's a video by Scholagladiatoria elaborating on my argument; perhaps a bit more articulately than I: ruclips.net/video/SWBUFvQvOBQ/видео.html
From a scale of 1 to 10, how painful bracing impact from war bow and "anti armour" arrow with wearing plate? Anybody did the stress test? How this repeated trauma affect a warrior's battle effectiveness?
From experience, I can tell you that getting hit by an axe on a plate made me suffer 2 weeks of bruised ribs. If it was mac, they would probably be broken. I was temporarily but partially out of breath, and for couple of seconds could only defend myself. Adrenaline kept the pain away and with lungs expanding I was able to win. BUT THE PAIN FOR NEXT 2 WEEKS was unbearable. I had a whole front left side purple. If it wasn't for the padding, my ribs would be in my organs. Since then I started to wear little thicker padding (the one I used was cheap, not much protection - mostly from chafing. I couldn't fit a gambeson (like shad has) beneath my plate, so I just went for something a bit thicker. I was never shot with an arrow, but if the padding beneath was as bad as mine, I would imagine shot to the sternum taking the breath away for 10-20 seconds. It depends if this is beginning of the battle or the middle (when you are so marinated on adrenaline that you can push trough it. And the most important thing is being prepared. If you see someone aiming at you (and you have the plate), prepare for impact. It will severely lessen it's, well impact.
I can’t say for sure, but during the video of the test Metatron is talking about, Tod spoke of getting shot by blunted arrows while in plate. He said it was pretty uncomfortable. Also, in that video, you can see the gel behind the plate visibly shaking when it’s hit. My guess would be it’s like getting a medium punch in the chest. Not disabling, certainly, but 7 or 8 shots before going into battle could definitely have your mind wondering if you’re in the right line of business 😊
At my HEMA club my buddies Clark and Ted were sparring with one handed steel swords and appropriate padding. The sword had a rolled tip but with a downward thrust was able to pierce through the unpadded portion of Clark's glove and over an inch into his hand between the thumb and index finger. He kept going for a while until his glove started dripping and he realized what happened. Adrenaline is a pretty cool thing.
As far as I remember from a documentary talking about potential arrow types used at Agincourt, their conclusion was that no matter their head, arrows had no signifiant deadly effect. What actually won them the battle was that they blockaded the charge path of the French knights who at some point had to dismount in their heavy armour, get those wooden pikes/poles out of the ground to clear a way, again in heavy armour and muddy terrain and after this, because it would be a nightmare to mount again, proceeded on foot, in muddy terrain and heavy armour and with a shower of arrows banging their heads and muscles. They became so tired that they began to slip on the muddy terrain. And because they were imobile and heavy, getting up became even more tiring, up to the point they could not even get up, at which point the englishmen just started bashing their heads with whatever they had hand
One thing I found fascinating personally was the non penetration direct hits. You normally think ping, broken arrow, ok, move along and murder something. With this we see that a dent from a broken arrow has enough weight and kinetic energy to put a knight off balance or even ass down with a couple. You never think of that from the matchstick arrows normally used.
@@renookami4651 well duh. A longbow is completely equal to a ballista in power and can be pulled back by a toddler. Years of high fantasy media has taught me this.
@@hunterkoons2008 Yes of course! Unless it's an elf bow used by, well...an elf. In that case it deals triple damage on top of multitargeting in any chosen path, not just straight shots. Bow&Arrows are awesome!
I like how you actually said near the end that you that you were gonna close it up for now. With so many of your older videos, just as its getting really interesting, it would end all of a sudden. And also, however you had your mic set up at the beginning and at the end was leagues better than the middle bit with the orange juice.
I wasn't surprised that the arrow pierced the mail, but I was surprised at how deep it penetrated. Even with gambeson or aketon underneath, that would likely have been a killing (later, from infection) shot given where the arrow hit. It made me wonder at what distance of shot that penetrative power would taper off to not penetrating enough to just punch through the mail. We really need more testing, of bows ranging from 120# to like 180#, from 20m, 40m, 80m, against a number of different ring diameters. It is a damn shame how difficult it is to get all the pieces together to properly test this; fletcher, armorer, archer, bowyer, and the technology for recording and measuring. Makes me wish I was stupid rich so I could fund research.
5:16 - A "grudging" admiration is reluctant or resentful. In context it sounded like you meant to be much more enthusiastic than that. Thanks for an interesting video!
The Modern History knight series is what got me started watching historical youtube videos. After that I really got into medieval and classical era. And then I found the Metatron channel. So some what indirectly Jason from Modern History lead me here.
Jason is a fucking beast. In addition to his profound knowledge of medieval history and everything he does on his channel, he's also the founder and CEO of Rebellion, the video game developer which made Aliens vs Predator and Sniper Elite. Absolute legend!
@@decem_sagittae Yeah I read that about him. His videos are always great production value too. Like good enough for TV. I was kind of surprised to hear Metatron mention him. I also watch Matt Easton, Lindybeige, Todd's Workshop, Skallagrim and sometimes Shadiversity and I've heard most of them mention each other at one point or another but hadn't heard any of them mention Jason over at Modern History til now. I would love to see Metatron or one of the above mentioned do a collab video with him
I remember watching something about this topic on the History Channel. What they explained, and demonstrated with a dummy, was that arrows from a bow could not pierce plated armor, though it could pierce leather up to a point. But even if they couldn't pierce plate, apparently repeated hits would cause interal injuries due to the force of the impact. I don't know how accurate that is...
I'd say another key to the English victory at Agincourt, was that the weather the night before was absolutely dreadful. On the day of the battle, the ground was so muddy and mucky, that the French attackers and their horses, were slowed down dramatically, and that gave the English archers more than enough time to kill their horses, and shatter their morale. Not to mention that a lot of the French troops were super hungover, as they were so sure of victory, many of them drank themselves to oblivion. Many other factors play in as well.
I watched a video about Henry V’s arrow wound from the battle of Shrewsbury and apparently shrapnel was a problem because one of the experts suggests that the arrow that hit Henry was slowed down by another object (possibly armor as suggested by the expert) before striking Henry.
@10:00 I think the history of car manufacturing and laws related to traffic might be a good example of how slowly technology reacts to safety. Seat belts weren't mandatory until 1970, a full two decades later it was introduced in cars (revealed by a cursory glance at wikipedia). The minds of people change often only after an accident has occured.
The eternal race between weapons and armor. What surprised me was the one arrow that warped around the breast plate, like it does around the bow when fired. So it could have killed someone standing directly behind the person in armor.
On exploding arrows: Steel on steel deflects well and will often "bounce" off with nearly the same energy as the initial hit. (Some energy is lost with each hit, of course.) The wooden splinters however are a different story. They might fly away, but their energy is going to be only a portion of the total and much of it will dump into the breastplate on contact. So the shrapnel might lightly wound someone, but unless the arrow stays intact on the ricochet we aren't going to see a lot of real damage being done. A man wearing only a thick shirt could lose an eye or take eye damage to such things, but even being hit in the face won't take him down, most likely. (Until a month later when he succumbs to the tiny demons that bring illness, that is.) If a war bow fires arrows at 180 feet per second (Which is fast for a self bow, especially with heavy arrows) and is firing a 1000 grain arrow (about two ounces and a a quarter) then then the direct hit would connect with about 71 lbs of energy. Once broken, after dumping the energy, each shard gets part of the, based on weight. So, if it broke in perfect quarters and maintained speed (which it wouldn't) then each part would hit with a power of 17.75 foot pounds. That is enough for light harrying, but not a lot more. While it was probably a factor on the battlefield, it was probably more responsible for demoralization of the men than it would be their untimely demise.
I've been shot multiple times at poin blank buy blunt arrows and BB guns (my younger brother was an asshole then). From my most recent fight, by the persons reaction, those hurt more than being stabbed with a blunt object (I was using hemostats, a medical instrument, or "very dangerous weapon" according to the state of Oregon).
If surprising to think of arrows exploding into shrapnel potentially injuring others. It now makes them seem even more like tanks of the day considering the armor packages of modern MBTs with explosive reactive armor (They literally just explode the projectile once it hits it) which can pose a danger to soldiers nearby if that detonates, or if a plain round just ricochets or shatters
As papay pointed out below that's not very representative. The answer though is a flat no, the speed of a mounted man is nothing compared to the arrow. Extra kinetic energy would be minimal, if anything because the targets are moving it'd be more awkward and less likely to land a square on shot on the armour.
The arrow going straight through the riveted mail was one of the unintended and more valuable datapoints of the video. But overall, the video was very educational, and it's unparalleled as an unbiased and accurate recreation of the events
6:13 If you go to Fort Bragg NC to the 82nd War Museum you will see this Kevlar helmet that stopped a 7.62×39mm fired from an AK 47. The soldier whose helmet this was issued to did not know he had been hit until he took off his helmet to eat lunch.
Wow, haven't watched Metatron in a while (no real reason, just suck at keeping up) and holy crap, the production quality has dramatically improved! Absolutely spectacular! Wow! Also, great points!
''we have just witnessed that knight in full plate armour is pretty much safe from arrow shots'' I am not sure i would say that...they were shooting at the strongest part of the armour...at the angle where the armour would be strongest and several of the shots badly dented the armour or were close to piercing...i am wondering if the armour could hold up if another arrow hit the same area...the denting has removed the angling...or if the thinner parts of the armour hold up at less favourable angles.
A 'very accurate muppet'? Muppet is a derogatory term used in Britain, used to denote a lack of awareness. As an example, one might say 'why did you call him a muppet, you muppet?!' ;)
Haaa...fellow Englishman here. We can take a joke...while muppet can be used in a derogatory way it can also be used between friends in a joking, lighthearted almost an endearing way to 'slag' (make fun of) someone. While Joe is an Englishman and an exceptional shot anyone calling him a 'very accurate muppet' would have to do so from...i dunno...say about 250-300 yards away? Lol
One thing I noticed on that video was the massive shock wave one the ballistic gel even if the arrow didn't penetrate imagine being hit with volley after volley of that
It's gonna smart, but it won't kill you. About like a good hard slap on the armor. It's when the gel cracks or gets shredded that you know there's be some serious tissue damage in a meat target.
Nice video. I did have a couple random thoughts watching it, though. At the Battle of Agincourt, the first two French battles were dismounted and advanced on foot. The third, mounted, French battle never really committed after seeing the fate of the first two. There was mounted cavalry on the flanks, but describing that battle as archers defeating cavalry is misleading. Secondly, there was quite a difference in quality in the armor. I have read estimates that the best armor of the time would be the equivalent of $2 million in today's money. Only something like 5% of the army could afford armor like that-we're talking royalty and dukes. The reason some son of a count might not have the best neck protection might have as much to do with him not being able to afford all the bells and whistles as anything else.
The way the head breaks off the shaft before all the energy transfers, enough to make a dent in the breastplate with just wood, makes me think that a full metal shafted arrow could be a possible improvement. I couldn't find any historical accounts of this but assuming it isn't just way too heavy it seems like a fair leap to make in the medieval mind.
I don't think that would work, as steel or any metal at the time was expensive enough already, as.... well the didn't really have the greatest technology for mining at the time, but other than that I guess it would have been pretty smart to use a full metal arrow, more durable and extra power, though I do wonder if the weight, like you said, could have some sort of effect, either too heavy to carry a lot in just one quiver or if they would be harder to shoot over all
I did watch the video first,and I will comment the same thing.When I looked up Agincourt it said that the longbows were more dangerous to poorly armored horses.If you damage or panic a knight's horse,you probably nerf a good bit of his advantages,and as for "psychological"effects,losing the animal that made you what you are was probably very disheartening,to say the least.
not to mention, horses have very powerful kicks; my dad's cousin is a farrier and he has one of his shoulders held on with staples, something like that, from being kicked by a horse; if a horse went berserk ppl could get badly injured or killed
I would suppose that shrapnel and splinters would present a real danger to the eyes. Splintering lances were certainly a danger in Jousts, that the helmet could not guard fully against.
One of the things my brother wondered was what if they used a Full up carbon steel arrow head, rather than a "modern steel case hardened" that they used at the end. In short basically the same stuff they made the armor out of. Now I would of liked to know the effects of other types of weapons, like high powered crossbows, slings and what nought...
Crossbows also have a range of force values, but the most powerful single man operated ones fall a little short of the high powered long bow, and the bolt shatters and flies off like the arrow does. I wouldn't place much confidence in the sling against armor. It has less range, power, accuracy, and it is blunt. Slings are cool though, I'll agree there.
Just imagine the sound of a hundred arrows hitting an armored front of knights. The noise. Like a thunderstorm filled with splintered arrows. Id like so see that in a movie/book.
By definition, an assault rifle is a rifle chambered for intermediate cartridge with removable magazine and selective fire capability. I would like to point out that Orlando police officer going by the name Michael Napolitano did survive a shot to the head from semi-automatic rifle chambered for intermediate cartridge thanks to kevlar helmet: www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-officer-smiling-kevlar-helmet-saved-life-article-1.2672918 A rifle similar to assault one but chambered for more powerful cartridge is called battle rifle. G3A3 is a good example.
Shrapnel isn't the term you would want to use in the situation of fragments breaking off of a projectile, in the instance of an arrow striking mail armor and breaking apart, but instead spalling. You see this in modern steel armor for ballistic protection. If steel is used as the material to protect against projectiles fired from a firearm it can and will cause spalling if the armor can stop the projectile in question. You don't really see spalling happen when the ammunition in question is purpose built armor piercing ammunition because it just punches straight through the armor. I should also mention that not every round that has a steel core is armor piercing ammunition. You don't see spalling occur when you fire handgun cartridges at armor that is rated for handgun cartridges, usually level I or II because these levels of armor are usually made out of kevlar. Then of course if you have ceramic armour as well, usually level III armour and some level III armour can be made of softer steel. Level III armour is rated for intermediate rifle cartridges like 5.56 NATO, and we are talking about ball ammunition because armor piercing 5.56 ammunition will penetrate level III armor. Ceramic plate will simple catch the round and spalling isn't really an issue. I apologize for the long winded comment. I am a bit of a firearm sperg. Yet when ball ammunition, so a steel or lead core projectile with a copper jacket, hits the armor in question it will utterly shatter the projectile into many small pieces. Just RUclips people shooting steel targets and you will see this effect. The benefits of steel armor is that if made of the right steel it will be more durable than ceramic or kevlar armor but also be able to stop 7.62 NATO ball. The downside is the spalling. That's why producers of modern armor produce steel ballistic armor they will put a antispalling coat on there. That also brings up another valid point. Do not shoot steel targets from a close distance, usually with 25 meters, and about 10 for pistols, because of spalling. Use paper, or rubber targets instead if shooting at close range.
That´s something I was thinking about the AR500 armour. It would be a nice armour being thin, protecting from knives etc. as well and unlike Kevlar transferring less of the impact on you, but imagining a bullet shattering on it and probably peppering your face and arm isn´t that nice...
@@komradearti9935 That's correct. Fragments of armor breaking off from an impact is called spalling and modern AFVs are pretty much all equipped with spall liners these days because even though the armor might stop a round from penetrating, the resulting spalling might be enough to Swiss cheese the crew. Bits of a round or shell that break from it exploding or shattering on impact against a hard target is called fragments or fragmentation. Also, shrapnel is technically not the same thing as fragmentation.Technically speaking, shrapnel are bits of metal put into a shell that fly out when the shell explodes. However, now a days, shrapnel is used interchangeably with fragmentation which refers to bit of the shell itself that break off on impact or explosion.
@@komradearti9935 Like I said, technically speaking shrapnel is different from shell fragments but now a days nobody distinguishes between the two. The difference, I believe is in that shrapnel was originally a separately added part of the shell, something to make (more?) fragmentation for when the shell explodes. Now a days, the fragmentation is just built into the shell as (I believe) part of the shell body.
I'm not sure if that spalling. Spalling is when a projectile strikes an object and causes pieces of that object to shoot off from the other side. There were Polish anti tanks rifles designed to do this. It results in a rifle caliber catridge having the same effect as a 20mm.
When you watch the slow mo the arrows immediately snapped at the base where the arrow tip and wood shaft was joined, if somehow it was made stronger all the force would go into the target and would have a greater chance of going through
6:25 actually modern helmets are indeed designed to stop pistol and more recently rifle rounds. Materials have come a very long way in just the past 20 years.
I was just thinking, how long were the 15th century battles like the battle of Agincourt? I mean, with all that plate armor all over you, arrows were causing minimal casualties and most of the melee fights would last for hours until one of the dudes got his chainmail damaged enough for a hit to actually injure them enough to the point were they would ''lose'' the duel. Now, multiplying that by the number of men fealded in the battles, (that being sometimes even hundreds of thousands) and oh lord a battle could literally last for days!
Great video, as usual. However, one small statement from personal experience. I have witnessed more than once someone being struck in the helmet by a 7.62 mm round and surviving, albeit with a concusion. Modern helmets are not only designed to deflect and stop bullets, but definitely have.
Point on the chain. The chain (and breastplate too) were made from modern steel using modern steel production methods. In other words the steel is purpose made to the desired thickness right from the start whereas medieval steel was made by taking thick iron stock and hammering it down to the desired thickness, making it denser. To make chain today they take washers that were punched out of the desired thickness steel plates. To make chain in the middle ages they had to hammer down iron stock to the thickness that would allow them to pull it into wire. Both the hammering and pulling making the iron denser, or harder. Then the wire had to be spun into springs and cut into rings before being hammered flat, making them even denser. An arrow going through modern reproduction chain means nothing. I want to see how actual forged armor holds up. Side note about longbows. The English used the Welsh longbow, the Welsh being the people they encountered using it. The Welsh fought mainly using skirmish and ambush tactics, and were mainly fighting each other when they invented their bow. They wore little to no armor which means that unlike what you hear most people say the longbow was not invented to penetrate armor. Why make a weapon to do something that you have no need for? The higher draw weight bows are made for added distance not penetrative power. Same goes for crossbows. The large and heavy draw weight crossbows were designed for siege warfare to be used from behind fortifications, either the place being besieged or from behind the siege lines. They have nothing to do with penetrating armor. Being able to wound your enemies before they even get close enough to swing at you is the main purpose behind higher poundage bows, such as the longbow. BTW the reason Henry had so many longbowmen in his army was that he was conducting a siege and wasn't planning on fighting a pitched battle. When the French approached he marched off trying to avoid fighting. When it became apparent he was going to have to fight he maneuvered himself onto ground that he felt gave his army the advantage.
Great video and I love the source. One point on the shrapnel if a long now man saw a man at arms surrounded by people armoured in a way shrapnel would hurt them wouldn't he just aim for them in the first place?
A couple of points in response (both I've made at greater length in comments on Tod's own videos). 1: MUD Firstly, we need to see Agincourt in the context of what we know abour First World War battles fought in much the same part of the world: namely, deep mud. It was October, it had been raining, and the battlefield had recently been ploughed. Eye witnesses on both sides reported that the French advance had been knee deep in mud, and very tightly packed. English eyewitness reports that when a french knight went down, other french knights would fall on top of him. You can well imagine that, if you're in a dense pack of people urgently striving to advance through mud, if you fall, the person behind you is going to be pushed onto you by the people behind him. So either he tramples you into the mud, or he goes down too, and either way you're (literally) in deep shit. Another eye witness accoount on the English side reports that french knights drowned in their helmets, and again you can well imagine that if you were pressed down into wet mud by people either falling on or walking over you, this could well happen. 2. MONEY Timber for bow staves and for arrow shafts, feathers for arrow flights, linen for bow strings, were all plentiful and easy to work with ordinary peasant tools. So every part of the archer's equipment except the arrowheads was extremely cheap to produce in a subsistence peasant economy. An arrow head such as that used in Tod's film weighs about 28 grammes, a suit of armour weight abour 20,000 grammes. So the same amount of worked metal will make either one full suit of armour, or SEVEN HUNDRED arrows. So if you imagine for a moment that the French and English quartermasters each had the same amount of money to spend on preparation for the battle, the English could have provided 700 arrows for each suit of armour the French had. If you're standing on a muddy battle field in the best armour money can buy, and you're hit by seven hundred arrows, you're going down, even if none of them pierce your armour.
Love your videos and content, but as a (former) modern solider I can attest (as other likely have) that modern kevlar helmets can stop military rounds (probably only once, but that's usually enough!) The body armor of kevlar and ceramic plates is also capable of defeating modern combat rounds to a degree. While heavy, it almost reminds one of the segmenta lorca, and is surprising supple in its movements. Maybe a good video topic for you someday, you might be struck by the comparisons! All the Best!
I have written my bachelor thesis on this topic. Comparing Shakespeare’s Henry V. with the real character and the real events. I messaged you on FB and asked about a few things and mostly your opinion. Cheers, mate. :-) great video.
Ciao Metatron! There is a new fascinating second video from Todd's Workshop on the same subject that goes much more in depth with the testing. Could you make a reaction video to that too? I think you and the historian will disagree on the amount of body covered by plate in 1415 and I think you'll be surprised about the efficiency of the Aventail. Let us know, grazie!
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Very kind of you to mention Modern History TV, thanks.
Loves your channel especially for shedding light on daily life of medieval europe
My pleasure!
I really liked your video on medieval peasant food with that food historian lady. Some of that stuff looked like something you'd get at a fancy restaurant. Really beats the "peasants either ate grey, tasteless gruel or starved" stereotype.
Not sure if you guys gives a shit but if you guys are stoned like me during the covid times you can watch all the latest series on instaflixxer. Have been binge watching with my girlfriend during the lockdown xD
@Brycen Titus definitely, been watching on Instaflixxer for since december myself :D
If you crouch down, you'll do more damage with a bow
Harshhaze no you’re shots just become more accurate. You want more damage you need fire arrows or to upgrade arrow heads
A fire damage entchantment should also help by melting the armor
Weeaboo Jones Maybe a potion that buffs ranged damage?
You mean the stealth multiplier?
Don't forget to hold it horizontal like a gangster.
His French with Italian accent will now be a basis of my imagination of how Napoleon Bonaparte sounded when speaking french.
Napoleon birthplace was somewhat close to Italy and he speak French. I wonder if any non native speaker could understand.
you'er right! I hadn't even thought of that
@Ben Ivin corsica had been Italian in Napoleon's fathers youth.
@Ben Ivin Corsica was bought (blackmailed) by the French from the Genoese not long before Napoleon was born, and the Corsican language is closely related to Central Italian languages such as Tuscan, which is the base for Standard Italian
So true
Anyone else heard his ending theme on the wrong time around 12:41?
His speech got so intense his theme started playing
French being stuffed with arrows? Lindybeige approves
I thought the same! Lloyd approved :D
I kept seeing Metatron, Shadiversity and Skallagram refs on each other's channels, recently Skallagram ref on Lindybiege's, now I'm seeing a Lindybiege ref on Metatron's. XD
Just letting everybody know Duolingo has Latin now and I believe it is Classical not Church.
for that, my friend, i will gladly sell my family to the duolingo owl
Whats the difference?
@@OtakuAiram church latin or vulgar latin is what most people recognize. veni, vini, vici, julius caesars famous quote, in church latin, would be pronounced as: ven-ee, vee-nee, vee-chee. in classical latin, the v made the w sound and the c made the k sound, so historically it would've been pronounced wen-ee, weenie, wee-key
@@TheLordpeanuts huehuehue he said "weenie".
But jokes aside, thanks for the clarification because I was wondering what was up with the different pronounciations.
@@TheLordpeanuts Just a short correction. It´s "veni, vidi, vici".
Its funny because you can still hear his itallian accent in french
Yeah, his French accent isn't nearly as good as his English. At times, it almost sounded like he was speaking German. But, I can't be too hard on him since I only speak English fluently can barely speak Mandarin, and know a smattering of French and Japanese; this is compared to his Italian, Latin, French, Japanese, and Mandarin.
@@Riceball01 I speak english, heated, spanglish, drunk, and silence. Not too bad.
Maybe that's why it sounded so good in my opinion.
@@Riceball01 Meh, as long as he can be understood that's all that matter.
His accent is there but clearly not as thick as most people when they're trying to speak it, je le dit en connaissance de cause (I'm saying this from experience).
Since I’m first might as well make a request, can you do a video on the Italian Wars in the 16th century?
Bret Alvarez and how the spanish smashed the french every time they fought. I mean, in Bicocca the spanish didn’t suffer any casualties whatsoever while killing 3000 swiss troops.
@@ricardodemarco3486 uuh Swiss guard destroyed!
FKN REKT!
Now, that is interesting
I agree! It would be so cool! If I'm n9t wrong it's the same time when the Barletta dispute took place!
In occurrence 2: Arrowheads exploding against armor also makes a tremendous noise. I expect that a knight's direct retinue would also be fairly well equipped to deal with the physicality of the battlefield, but the sound and constant pelting of small shrapnel would almost certainly have a psychological impact.
You probably would stop caring after a while
@@irontemplar6222 I would tend to agree on that point. As long as you're not getting injured, there wouldn't be clear physical signs of trauma for a veteran of battle. However, that doesn't really affect the mental state of soldiers who survive repeated bombardment. In the moment they might do okay, they might not, and there would have been little chance to tell.
No... The arrows... The deafening noise...
@@christopherpurches2774 their are reports of soldier who during drumrole bombardments complaining that it sometimes disturbed their sleep.
I think most were probably fine
@@irontemplar6222 and you may be right. 20th century warfare would give the impression that repeated exposure to such stimulus causes confusion and erratic behavior upon reexposure and can generate PTSD as a long term consequence. That is more where my speculation was coming from.
"Maille has been an excellent armour, all the way back to ancient Rome!"
*Angry Ancient Celt noises*
Easy answer: It depends of the armor. If it’s heat treated carbon steel armor then you can’t, you are not gonna penetrate that thing even at point blank with any medieval projectile weapon.
Save for the obvious exception of a pommel.
What is with medieval cannons?
@@vonrosphe3098 Canons were not meant for penetrations until later ironclade early battleship age. Before that you had high explosive shots (early 19th century) and full or 'hollow' cannonballs that were meant to shatter the target, which is not considered 'penetration', which involves concentrating the impact force on a small area.
To put it simply, a medieval cannonball works like a big pommel
@@nottoday3817 what if you put your pommel in the cannon?
@@eliogabbalo0965 I think putting a bunch of pommels in a cannon is called grapeshot.
No.
Stuff like certain big dart launcher can kebab high quality steel plate with ease.
It is possible to get through high quality steel plate at mostly point blank range (not talking about missiles post perforation efficacy).
Medieval, my definition of it end is around 16th century, saw introduction of relatively potent firearms.
This video made me think about something in regards to the law that had Englishmen practicing the longbow every Sunday. I was thinking about how the people in general would have approached handling this and it occurred to me not every person is going to have targets set up at home easily, yes most people could have something even if it was a nearby tree or something within walking distance.
At this point it is something for I would imagine most people that would be more then just nipping into the back garden, so your heading off to practice at a good spot nearby when you run into Bob and John, they are both going too and have their sons with them who are of age too. Now this has become a social situation the lads take some food and drink, they try and make it fun they set up some targets they see who is the better shot among them, yes it is legally required practice but Humans are amazing at coping with situations and turn something thats a chore into fun all the time.
So when Tom the local sheriff or equivalent stops by to the usual practice spot he finds a few families practicing quite happily having a laugh and he stops catches up on the gossip and has a few shots himself before ticking them off the list and moving on with a slice of cheese he cheekily swiped off Bob for being drunk in the street the other day rather then have to fine him as they grew up together.
I could see some villages taking this even further, the local mayor with permission of a local lord keen to encourage this behavior and some small funds sets up an archery range in the village square and while Sunday is the day of rest people cook a load of food and bring their families and they make it a village event with prizes for the best shot in the village each week. The local lord sometimes even attends quite proud that his local archers are some of the best around much better then lord so and so's over in the next valley.
These ideas just occurred to me and I would love to see some exploration of this, how the people handled this in a day to day fashion. Humanity has always been good at making the best of a bad or bring situation, we are creatures of survival and social creatures at that. Might make for an interesting video. :)
Either way thank you for this one Metatron, a pleasure as always.
They usually had public communal places for their archery practice. Our ancestors were far more social and less private than we.
I do remember this thing being on a picture, showing a coutryside of that period, I would have too look but I believe it is documented :-)
This law is a catalyst. If you are told to do something every Sunday and you see your friends coming along and everyone is having fun, they'll probably start doing it twice a week, maybe even three times and so forth.
Solus Schrade genius. Why have I never thought that this would happen
Fellow Englishman here...yes it is true that a law was passed that for all 'men of age' it was mandatory to practice archery on a Sunday. The idea behind this was that if a war broke out that the King had a ready supply of archers that could be conscripted into the army. Archery was also a somewhat of a pastime and hobby for most so they would have had access to a bow and practiced in their backyard, local field, town center etc.
Both Metatron and Shadiversity put out a reply to the same video within 24 hours of each other, must be a good video.
One thing I'd love to know is how dangerous were arrows and melee hits that did NOT penetrate armor. Say, if a few arrows hit your head, even if none of them penetrate your helmet, would the concussion be debilitating? Would a knight be able to keep fighting after being hit by a hundred arrows, even if none of them penetrate the armor?
Modern reenactors often say that being hit by blunt arrows from weak bows is 'quite unpleasant', I bet being hit by the real stuff from 100+ pound bows would be even moreso. The question is, can you wear down a knight or knock them out without ever drawing blood? And if so, how often did it happen, was it significant on a battlefield? How effective is "armor that can't be penetrated by arrows" at keeping you alive and battle capable.
It was one of my thought also, when you see the shockwave behind the armor from the impact, after quite a lot you could sustain internal damage. a good example, are people running marathons, one of the parameters they have to take into account is the shockwave they get from there feets hitting the ground that goes through the body, one of this shockwave is nothing for a normal person but 10 000 or more in a short period can make you uncomfortable to the point that you can throw up, if you are not well trained.
@@fredericdewael8378 And then you have wrestlers, boxers and other people who take this up to eleven.
9:40 I just want to point out that although we naturally assume that inventions and discoveries like that was a result of previous failure, its not necessarily the case. Just as we test armour and look for weakspots today, they did as well. They made armour upgrades to prevent injury. That doesnt automatically mean that someone earlier had to sustain that particular injury, even if that is most often the case.
In this particular case its probably difficult to draw accurate conclusions without a high speed camera or extensive testing though and probably result of experience as you said.
well, testing does kinda improve 'previous failure', it's just not combat failure
It's always a bit of both. They can improve the parts on wich they notice a weak point beofrehand, but sometimes things go unexpected and new problems arise. It's not necesseraly failure per say if an arrowhead fly off an armor to the next guy's neck, the armor of the target DID do the job properly. New improvments can then occur from the unlucky story being told, locally, for next time. Then it end up being copied elsewhere.
"And the cycle of theory, practice and unexpected discoveries goes on as always."
Now I feel bad for mr son of a baron
I was also very surprised by how easily that arrow penetrated those rings. It made me realize that a hail of arrows was bound to hit some areas that are not covered by plate. I’m glad you brought it up. I’ve seen a lot of lower power bows (49-80 lb draw weight) not make it through mail & game son.
Don't forget how good english archers were, they were snipers, hitting the vulnerable spots.
I love the quality of this video. It feels like I was watching something on the History Channel. If that was the goal, you aced it! The fluid ad transitions were the cerry on top. Everything was so professional! How did I only discover you after Skall, Shad, and even Joerg!?
Long Time viewer, first time poster. I just wanted to thank you for recommending Modern History TV. I've gathered quite the collection of Historical Channel subscriptions now and MHTV is a excellent addition. I think it's wonderful how you guys pool together your resources and knowledge in a commendably civil manner, even if you don't always agree with each other. It's a welcome change of pace from the toxicity that can plague other fandoms. Chad, Loyd, Mat, Tod, Errant and a few I'm forgetting off the top of my head, you've all helped to clarify and bring to life the arms, armor and lifestyles of Great Warriors from History. I thank you and will drop your name on MHTV to let him know where the recommendation came from.
1:57 "First, that's scary."
Yeah, imagine using mail for centuries with gambeson as an effective counter to arrows and suddenly longbows and metal crossbows show up that can negate that to a degree. That would be pretty terrifying for the average soldier. Almost akin to how knights in full plate must have felt when the arquebus showed up.
Hollywood: Plate armor? Protection? That doesn´t exist, everyone dies from a single shoot or cut, everytime.
Metatron, Shadiversity and others: SIGH...
Great point about the shrapnel . I was thinking the same thing when I watched Todd’s video.
Great video Metatron! Really raised some excellent points. I saw a video about Henry V getting an arrow wound in his face. Tod’s & your video made me realise there is a good chance it was a deliberately aimed shot, rather than the random shot it’s often portrayed as.
We really need to discuss the effect of weather (heat mostly) on armoured forces.
Awesome video!
I look forward to a continuation of this series.
Sooooo happy Jason got a shout out. Followed my man and his crew for over a year and Metatron is right, he does fantastically educating videos that are beautifully shot, excellently executed and a superb sound quality I might add.
I liked the French cloak thing they put over the armor. That nearly negated ricochet.
Modern rigid body armors often have a thick coating on top to do the same thing because bullets hitting hard armor will often fragment and spray little pieces of lead and copper in every direction - probably not enough to kill you, but definitely enough to give you a nasty injury.
One thing occurred to me while watching this video. If the arrow were to hit an articulated joint on the later plate armor, it could prevent that joint from moving if the dent was deep enough or in the wrong place. This would result in restricted mobility for the man at arms or knight, thus hurting his fighting capacity even if it doesn't actually hurt him.
What I'd like to see is some videos on the Vlachs/Romanians of the middle ages, which were reputed as great archers in their part of the world and were known to have used poisoned arrows as attested by various chronicles of the time. For example, during the Third Crusade they have constantly harassed the army of Barbarossa as he was making his way towards Constantinople, springing forth from the woods and mountain passes and peppering the crusaders with poisoned arrows, using the terrain to their advantage (Ansbertus, ed. Chroust, 27-28 (transl. Loud, 60; FLHB III, 253); Historia peregrinorum, ed. Chroust,136-138 (FLHB III, 228-230); Tageno, 509 (transl. Loud, 151)). I am curious how effective those poisoned arrows could have been against the crusaders. Perhaps the Vlachs targeted their horses?
The Greek version of the Chronicle of Morea contains an account of the Battle of Adrianople (where Baldwin was taken prisoner) which describes the Cumans in Caloian's army shooting at the enemies' horses: 'Now, the Franks expected to give them battle with spears and swords, as they were accustomed to do. But the Cumans fled and did not come close to them; they only shot arrows at them with their bows and they let loose so many that they killed them; for the chargers perished, the knights fell.' (v. 1150-1156 (Camariano 1944, 357-358, 360-361; ed. Lurier, 100; Shawcross 2009, 342, 349; FHDR IV, 170/171). A video on shooting horses would also be interesting.
While in the topic, make something for ancient and early medieval archers and skirmishers. People seem to think they all operated like the English longbowmen, firing volleys from a far corner of the battlefield with high power long range weapons.
Actually they mention in the video that everything suggests the longbowmen fired at close range horizontally.
Personally I'd be really curious as to why slingers who were so prominent during antiquity vanishes. Shouldn't their shots be more similar to a mace, thus able to result in concussions? Were there slingstones shaped like maceheads who would focus their force on a few specific points?
M. Vipsanius Agrippa I think it’s probably too difficult to sling a stone hard enough to damage someone in plate armor or even good padded armor. That’s why slings fell out of military use by the early medieval period
Can u review some fight scenes from youtube channel Adorea?
Yes please
Your video quality has improved greatly. Great work
What I found really interesting in that test was the arrowhead actually heating up from the immense kinetic energy of the impact. Imagine being a foot soldier in the front line and some stray piece of hot metal hits you in the face, gets stuck in your clothing, etc. Definitely something that might throw you off in the moment.
Maybe but modern day soldiers deal with brass flying into their shirts, necks, and arms that burn. It can suck afterwords but in the moment it almost barley registrars.
Excellent video as always, and thank you for the channel recommendations. My subscription feed is greatly improved, now. Cheers!
When looking at all these analyses in terms of arrows versus plate armour, I feel it's always worth remembering that the plate armour is being treated in ideal conditions - i.e. a complete set, in pristine condition, without wear and tear, and using high quality materials. In truth, all of these are going to be highly variable. Moreover, by virtue of how expensive it is and how soldiers supply their own equipment, those in full plate would make a small minority of an army - especially those donning new, high quality, undamaged armour. I'd argue it's far likelier that even amongst the knights, many would be donning older armour (e.g. something passed down from his father) or armour that'd previously seen combat or perhaps even incomplete armour with not every single type of component present (be it due to weight or cost).
Not really ideal conditions and they intentionally didn't use the highest quality materials except for the very last arrowhead they shot.
The test itself is ideal for the bow. A reasonably rigid fixed target, it's not moving, sitting at a dead on angle, shot at close range.
How expensive do you think armour was to make, how much money do you believe those 'amongst knights' had? When we're talking about 1380-1390 which this armour represents we're not talking about 'older armour from a previous generation' when we're representing plate armour, not even possible. If armour was as expensive as you seem to believe it is would you intentionally keep it in poor condition?
@@7dayspking First things first, don't get me wrong - all else being equal, of course the breastplate stopped the arrow. That's it's job and why such things came into existence in the first place. As for any lack of maintenance of the armour, once again - of course - it wouldn't be intentional. Rather, due to wear and tear from being on campaign, cost, and - in the case of older armour - age. The Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415; making any armour from 1380-1390 about 25-35 years old.
Now, as for the cost of armour. We actually have a decent idea about this. For instance, in 1441, Sir John Crecy purchased himself a suit of armour at £8 6s 8d for himself and at £6 for his squire. Tobias Capwell, the host in Tod's video and a respect expert in medieval armour, noted that these were not high quality armour even for the time. Rather, the finest armour would cost around £20. In contrast, a man-at-arms (who one would expect to be armoured) was paid 1s per day whilst on campaign (£1 = 20s); meaning basic quality armour cost about 100-120 days of campaigning's wage, and that's without factoring the cost for food, other equipment, and the retinue needed to maintain said armour. Moreover, a hobbler (a horseman) was only paid 6p per day (1s = 12p); meaning armour would cost a hobbler 200-240 days' wage before they could attempt presenting themselves as a man-at-arms. Lastly, spearmen were paid 2p per day; equaling 600-720 days' wage to afford a suit of armour of basic quality.
Lastly, on the issue of the test being ideal conditions versus practical conditions, it is in respect to it being a single archer aiming at a single breastplate and at centre mass. In reality, it would be multiple volleys of arrows aimed at a body of men in armour; at which point some arrows would either hit less armoured areas/gaps in the armour.
Hope that helps clarify my arguments.
@@evilwelshman Plate armour protects against a lot of things, including later firearms. If your armour gets damaged in battle and you don't have it repaired, you've intentionally left it in poor condition especially if it's as costly as you later claim. Would you leave your car in poor condition? I'm not putting the equivalent of 15000-50,000 dollars down based on your 'wages vs armour price' (if we ignore the flaws in your wage comparison, can you imagine calling a 50,000 dollar object today top quality?) to not look after what I've purchased.
The armour represented here is based on a piece from the 1380s-1390s, it isn't representative of top quality armour in 1415. In 1380-1390 there was no such thing as an 'old' family breastplate. Hardness and quality of the armour intended to be replicated in this instance is a 630 year old piece, not brand new top quality for 1415.
Not a good idea to compare the wage of a soldier to the price of armour unless we're talking strictly about professional soldiers which it's clear we aren't. Where are you getting these values for soldier wages? If a top quality car costs over a million dollars, a 500,000 dollar car is still a top quality luxury automobile (20 pounds vs 8 pounds.) and not close to representative of what a standard brand new car would cost (less than 10 x the price of that 'not high quality automobile even for the time.). If you're interested in the reality of armour prices and wages you should be looking at broad survey's for both.
I'm not actually looking to pick holes but before you respond again some very basic things to consider. What they're shooting at is a breastplate, not an entire harness so rethink your analogies, do you think your average spearman wore 140 shillings of armour on them like *Sir* John Crecy? Each individual arrow in these 'volleys' has the same chance these shots did if they were shooting at a mass of still, fixed, rigid targets like this one.
Don't think so one dimensionally.
@@7dayspking On the price of armour, my sources are as follows: "Arms and armour of the medieval knight" by David Edge and John Miles Paddock; and corroborated by "The Knight and the blast furnace" by Alan Williams. In terms of the soldiers' wages, these are taken from "Battle of Agincourt: sources & interpretations" by Anne Curry as well as "The road to Crecy: The English invasion of France, 1346" by Marilyn Livingstone and Morgen Witzel; indicating that the wages are going to be within that ballpark between those two periods.
Out of curiosity, why would it not be a good idea to compare the wges of soliders and the price of armour unless talking strictly about professional soldiers? Even levied peasants were expected to supply their own equipment.
Coming back to the topic, if you're talking about spearmen, etc then once again breastplates would not be what they'd typically be wearing. Rather, it'd be things like mail and brigandine (if at all); particularly in late 14th and early 15th century. On the subject of maintaining armour, again it is not about not bothering to look after one's equipment but the lack of means and inherent difficulty of doing so whilst on campaign - either you're rich enough to have squires and servants to do so - in which case, they would be expected to wear plate armour of reasonable quality - or you don't; in which case you were probably wearing cheaper armour as opposed to breastplate (which also typically requires someone else in order to be properly worn). As such, the overemphasis of looking at bows in relation to breastplate over all other kinds of armour creates a false impression as only a small proportion of the army would have been wearing breastplates.
Lastly, once again, having a single bow aimed and fired at centre mass of a single breastplate (which is its strongest point) as in the experiment is somewhat misleading as well. When against armies, the practice would have been to fire at the mass as a whole rather than aiming for specific individuals. Basically, the criticism here is that just using a single bow and breastplate is inadequate and it would be more appropriate if they had a more completely armoured target with several archers firing in volley and looking to see where they landed. Also, when against mounted troops, there is the kinetic energy and momentum of the soldier and horse moving towards the arrow that hasn't been taken into account as well.
Sorry if this comes across as slightly jumbled but you had raised multiple points that I felt were worth addressing.
@@7dayspking In case you're still interested in the topic, here's a video by Scholagladiatoria elaborating on my argument; perhaps a bit more articulately than I: ruclips.net/video/SWBUFvQvOBQ/видео.html
From a scale of 1 to 10, how painful bracing impact from war bow and "anti armour" arrow with wearing plate? Anybody did the stress test? How this repeated trauma affect a warrior's battle effectiveness?
From experience, I can tell you that getting hit by an axe on a plate made me suffer 2 weeks of bruised ribs. If it was mac, they would probably be broken. I was temporarily but partially out of breath, and for couple of seconds could only defend myself. Adrenaline kept the pain away and with lungs expanding I was able to win. BUT THE PAIN FOR NEXT 2 WEEKS was unbearable. I had a whole front left side purple. If it wasn't for the padding, my ribs would be in my organs. Since then I started to wear little thicker padding (the one I used was cheap, not much protection - mostly from chafing. I couldn't fit a gambeson (like shad has) beneath my plate, so I just went for something a bit thicker. I was never shot with an arrow, but if the padding beneath was as bad as mine, I would imagine shot to the sternum taking the breath away for 10-20 seconds. It depends if this is beginning of the battle or the middle (when you are so marinated on adrenaline that you can push trough it. And the most important thing is being prepared. If you see someone aiming at you (and you have the plate), prepare for impact. It will severely lessen it's, well impact.
I can’t say for sure, but during the video of the test Metatron is talking about, Tod spoke of getting shot by blunted arrows while in plate. He said it was pretty uncomfortable. Also, in that video, you can see the gel behind the plate visibly shaking when it’s hit. My guess would be it’s like getting a medium punch in the chest. Not disabling, certainly, but 7 or 8 shots before going into battle could definitely have your mind wondering if you’re in the right line of business 😊
@@jannegrey yo damn dont die
I spoke to a guy who had done this. He described it as being "really, really annoying." As in, it hurts a lot but doesn't really cause injury.
At my HEMA club my buddies Clark and Ted were sparring with one handed steel swords and appropriate padding. The sword had a rolled tip but with a downward thrust was able to pierce through the unpadded portion of Clark's glove and over an inch into his hand between the thumb and index finger. He kept going for a while until his glove started dripping and he realized what happened. Adrenaline is a pretty cool thing.
Do Three Quarters Armor in a future video please. The kind used by early Cuirassiers.
thank you for your vids, as usual, great work. i'd like to take the time to also thank you for Tod's channel, can't stop watching it
As far as I remember from a documentary talking about potential arrow types used at Agincourt, their conclusion was that no matter their head, arrows had no signifiant deadly effect. What actually won them the battle was that they blockaded the charge path of the French knights who at some point had to dismount in their heavy armour, get those wooden pikes/poles out of the ground to clear a way, again in heavy armour and muddy terrain and after this, because it would be a nightmare to mount again, proceeded on foot, in muddy terrain and heavy armour and with a shower of arrows banging their heads and muscles. They became so tired that they began to slip on the muddy terrain. And because they were imobile and heavy, getting up became even more tiring, up to the point they could not even get up, at which point the englishmen just started bashing their heads with whatever they had hand
One thing I found fascinating personally was the non penetration direct hits. You normally think ping, broken arrow, ok, move along and murder something. With this we see that a dent from a broken arrow has enough weight and kinetic energy to put a knight off balance or even ass down with a couple. You never think of that from the matchstick arrows normally used.
If an Arrow does a small dent to the armor it will kill the user. History channel Logic.
If an arrow hits at all it will impale the victim, and sometimes even the guy behind them as well. Movies logic. xD
@@renookami4651 well duh. A longbow is completely equal to a ballista in power and can be pulled back by a toddler. Years of high fantasy media has taught me this.
@@hunterkoons2008 Yes of course! Unless it's an elf bow used by, well...an elf. In that case it deals triple damage on top of multitargeting in any chosen path, not just straight shots. Bow&Arrows are awesome!
Shrek Hentai Literally the best name in RUclips history.
If any strike lands anywhere from even your fists to another guy even in full plate armor You will do damage. Video Game Logic.
I was looking for good videos on this just yesterday. Excellent timing, Metatron!
For the shrapnel thing: There is nearly no written down casualty caused by an arrow, but there are many caused by lance or arrow shrapnel
I like how you actually said near the end that you that you were gonna close it up for now. With so many of your older videos, just as its getting really interesting, it would end all of a sudden. And also, however you had your mic set up at the beginning and at the end was leagues better than the middle bit with the orange juice.
I wasn't surprised that the arrow pierced the mail, but I was surprised at how deep it penetrated. Even with gambeson or aketon underneath, that would likely have been a killing (later, from infection) shot given where the arrow hit. It made me wonder at what distance of shot that penetrative power would taper off to not penetrating enough to just punch through the mail. We really need more testing, of bows ranging from 120# to like 180#, from 20m, 40m, 80m, against a number of different ring diameters. It is a damn shame how difficult it is to get all the pieces together to properly test this; fletcher, armorer, archer, bowyer, and the technology for recording and measuring. Makes me wish I was stupid rich so I could fund research.
5:16 - A "grudging" admiration is reluctant or resentful. In context it sounded like you meant to be much more enthusiastic than that. Thanks for an interesting video!
An honest mistake
I love history and love your channel and Todd's. You're both a credit to the historical community
Thanks!
The Modern History knight series is what got me started watching historical youtube videos. After that I really got into medieval and classical era. And then I found the Metatron channel. So some what indirectly Jason from Modern History lead me here.
Jason is a fucking beast. In addition to his profound knowledge of medieval history and everything he does on his channel, he's also the founder and CEO of Rebellion, the video game developer which made Aliens vs Predator and Sniper Elite. Absolute legend!
@@decem_sagittae Yeah I read that about him. His videos are always great production value too. Like good enough for TV. I was kind of surprised to hear Metatron mention him. I also watch Matt Easton, Lindybeige, Todd's Workshop, Skallagrim and sometimes Shadiversity and I've heard most of them mention each other at one point or another but hadn't heard any of them mention Jason over at Modern History til now. I would love to see Metatron or one of the above mentioned do a collab video with him
@@davekingrey1009 Slim chances. Perhaps Matt since they're both in England. But who knows?
I remember watching something about this topic on the History Channel. What they explained, and demonstrated with a dummy, was that arrows from a bow could not pierce plated armor, though it could pierce leather up to a point. But even if they couldn't pierce plate, apparently repeated hits would cause interal injuries due to the force of the impact. I don't know how accurate that is...
I'd say another key to the English victory at Agincourt, was that the weather the night before was absolutely dreadful. On the day of the battle, the ground was so muddy and mucky, that the French attackers and their horses, were slowed down dramatically, and that gave the English archers more than enough time to kill their horses, and shatter their morale. Not to mention that a lot of the French troops were super hungover, as they were so sure of victory, many of them drank themselves to oblivion. Many other factors play in as well.
I watched a video about Henry V’s arrow wound from the battle of Shrewsbury and apparently shrapnel was a problem because one of the experts suggests that the arrow that hit Henry was slowed down by another object (possibly armor as suggested by the expert) before striking Henry.
@10:00 I think the history of car manufacturing and laws related to traffic might be a good example of how slowly technology reacts to safety. Seat belts weren't mandatory until 1970, a full two decades later it was introduced in cars (revealed by a cursory glance at wikipedia). The minds of people change often only after an accident has occured.
The eternal race between weapons and armor. What surprised me was the one arrow that warped around the breast plate, like it does around the bow when fired. So it could have killed someone standing directly behind the person in armor.
On exploding arrows:
Steel on steel deflects well and will often "bounce" off with nearly the same energy as the initial hit. (Some energy is lost with each hit, of course.) The wooden splinters however are a different story. They might fly away, but their energy is going to be only a portion of the total and much of it will dump into the breastplate on contact.
So the shrapnel might lightly wound someone, but unless the arrow stays intact on the ricochet we aren't going to see a lot of real damage being done. A man wearing only a thick shirt could lose an eye or take eye damage to such things, but even being hit in the face won't take him down, most likely. (Until a month later when he succumbs to the tiny demons that bring illness, that is.)
If a war bow fires arrows at 180 feet per second (Which is fast for a self bow, especially with heavy arrows) and is firing a 1000 grain arrow (about two ounces and a a quarter) then then the direct hit would connect with about 71 lbs of energy. Once broken, after dumping the energy, each shard gets part of the, based on weight. So, if it broke in perfect quarters and maintained speed (which it wouldn't) then each part would hit with a power of 17.75 foot pounds.
That is enough for light harrying, but not a lot more.
While it was probably a factor on the battlefield, it was probably more responsible for demoralization of the men than it would be their untimely demise.
Wow. Arrows are deadlier than I thought.
I've been shot multiple times at poin blank buy blunt arrows and BB guns (my younger brother was an asshole then). From my most recent fight, by the persons reaction, those hurt more than being stabbed with a blunt object (I was using hemostats, a medical instrument, or "very dangerous weapon" according to the state of Oregon).
If surprising to think of arrows exploding into shrapnel potentially injuring others. It now makes them seem even more like tanks of the day considering the armor packages of modern MBTs with explosive reactive armor (They literally just explode the projectile once it hits it) which can pose a danger to soldiers nearby if that detonates, or if a plain round just ricochets or shatters
It's funny, your accent while speaking french sounds german somehow ^^
Greetings from france noble one, thanks for the upload
I saw the video before, I think they should add the "charge" of the mounted knights, because that way the arrow will hit harder in the armour
Small problem, Agincourt battle was fought mainly by dismounted French knights. See Dr.Capwell video linked.
As papay pointed out below that's not very representative. The answer though is a flat no, the speed of a mounted man is nothing compared to the arrow. Extra kinetic energy would be minimal, if anything because the targets are moving it'd be more awkward and less likely to land a square on shot on the armour.
The arrow going straight through the riveted mail was one of the unintended and more valuable datapoints of the video. But overall, the video was very educational, and it's unparalleled as an unbiased and accurate recreation of the events
Awesome! Pls make a part 2. Btw loved your french speech
Great video. The camera was a little blurry tho. I'm glad even after all this time u bring great content
Man, glad you left the Goblet of Fire haircut behind for the Sir Lancelot look. 😮💨😮💨😮💨
8:00 - jupons didn't make much sense to me until I saw the shrapnel effect that jupons curb quite well
Your French sounds very good. I don't know french, but it sounded so satisfying.
6:13 If you go to Fort Bragg NC to the 82nd War Museum you will see this Kevlar helmet that stopped a 7.62×39mm fired from an AK 47. The soldier whose helmet this was issued to did not know he had been hit until he took off his helmet to eat lunch.
Wow, haven't watched Metatron in a while (no real reason, just suck at keeping up) and holy crap, the production quality has dramatically improved! Absolutely spectacular! Wow!
Also, great points!
One thing to remember, most of the soldiers wouldnt be armored head to toe. Only the knights and the elite would be that armored.
If you kill their friends knights are pretty much F@ked !
''we have just witnessed that knight in full plate armour is pretty much safe from arrow shots''
I am not sure i would say that...they were shooting at the strongest part of the armour...at the angle where the armour would be strongest and several of the shots badly dented the armour or were close to piercing...i am wondering if the armour could hold up if another arrow hit the same area...the denting has removed the angling...or if the thinner parts of the armour hold up at less favourable angles.
A 'very accurate muppet'?
Muppet is a derogatory term used in Britain, used to denote a lack of awareness.
As an example, one might say 'why did you call him a muppet, you muppet?!' ;)
@@charleslindeman2169 I can´t even write the word for a womans hip backside without having my comment deleted by YT and you write KANT?
Brits are quite capable of back-handed compliments
@@CorvusCorone68 I thought this was more of an Austrian thing. LOL.
Haaa...fellow Englishman here. We can take a joke...while muppet can be used in a derogatory way it can also be used between friends in a joking, lighthearted almost an endearing way to 'slag' (make fun of) someone. While Joe is an Englishman and an exceptional shot anyone calling him a 'very accurate muppet' would have to do so from...i dunno...say about 250-300 yards away? Lol
One thing I noticed on that video was the massive shock wave one the ballistic gel even if the arrow didn't penetrate imagine being hit with volley after volley of that
It's gonna smart, but it won't kill you. About like a good hard slap on the armor. It's when the gel cracks or gets shredded that you know there's be some serious tissue damage in a meat target.
Nice video. I did have a couple random thoughts watching it, though. At the Battle of Agincourt, the first two French battles were dismounted and advanced on foot. The third, mounted, French battle never really committed after seeing the fate of the first two. There was mounted cavalry on the flanks, but describing that battle as archers defeating cavalry is misleading. Secondly, there was quite a difference in quality in the armor. I have read estimates that the best armor of the time would be the equivalent of $2 million in today's money. Only something like 5% of the army could afford armor like that-we're talking royalty and dukes. The reason some son of a count might not have the best neck protection might have as much to do with him not being able to afford all the bells and whistles as anything else.
The way the head breaks off the shaft before all the energy transfers, enough to make a dent in the breastplate with just wood, makes me think that a full metal shafted arrow could be a possible improvement. I couldn't find any historical accounts of this but assuming it isn't just way too heavy it seems like a fair leap to make in the medieval mind.
I don't think that would work, as steel or any metal at the time was expensive enough already, as.... well the didn't really have the greatest technology for mining at the time, but other than that I guess it would have been pretty smart to use a full metal arrow, more durable and extra power, though I do wonder if the weight, like you said, could have some sort of effect, either too heavy to carry a lot in just one quiver or if they would be harder to shoot over all
I did watch the video first,and I will comment the same thing.When I looked up Agincourt it said that the longbows were more dangerous to poorly armored horses.If you damage or panic a knight's horse,you probably nerf a good bit of his advantages,and as for "psychological"effects,losing the animal that made you what you are was probably very disheartening,to say the least.
not to mention, horses have very powerful kicks; my dad's cousin is a farrier and he has one of his shoulders held on with staples, something like that, from being kicked by a horse; if a horse went berserk ppl could get badly injured or killed
I would suppose that shrapnel and splinters would present a real danger to the eyes. Splintering lances were certainly a danger in Jousts, that the helmet could not guard fully against.
One of the things my brother wondered was what if they used a Full up carbon steel arrow head, rather than a "modern steel case hardened" that they used at the end. In short basically the same stuff they made the armor out of.
Now I would of liked to know the effects of other types of weapons, like high powered crossbows, slings and what nought...
Crossbows also have a range of force values, but the most powerful single man operated ones fall a little short of the high powered long bow, and the bolt shatters and flies off like the arrow does. I wouldn't place much confidence in the sling against armor. It has less range, power, accuracy, and it is blunt. Slings are cool though, I'll agree there.
This channel must be watched more... I wish i could explore this gem before :)))
Just imagine the sound of a hundred arrows hitting an armored front of knights. The noise. Like a thunderstorm filled with splintered arrows. Id like so see that in a movie/book.
I cannot believe you are Italian! your amazing, and Italian in my mind means something different now, and I feel you made me a better person.
By definition, an assault rifle is a rifle chambered for intermediate cartridge with removable magazine and selective fire capability. I would like to point out that Orlando police officer going by the name Michael Napolitano did survive a shot to the head from semi-automatic rifle chambered for intermediate cartridge thanks to kevlar helmet:
www.nydailynews.com/news/national/orlando-officer-smiling-kevlar-helmet-saved-life-article-1.2672918
A rifle similar to assault one but chambered for more powerful cartridge is called battle rifle. G3A3 is a good example.
Shrapnel isn't the term you would want to use in the situation of fragments breaking off of a projectile, in the instance of an arrow striking mail armor and breaking apart, but instead spalling.
You see this in modern steel armor for ballistic protection. If steel is used as the material to protect against projectiles fired from a firearm it can and will cause spalling if the armor can stop the projectile in question. You don't really see spalling happen when the ammunition in question is purpose built armor piercing ammunition because it just punches straight through the armor. I should also mention that not every round that has a steel core is armor piercing ammunition. You don't see spalling occur when you fire handgun cartridges at armor that is rated for handgun cartridges, usually level I or II because these levels of armor are usually made out of kevlar. Then of course if you have ceramic armour as well, usually level III armour and some level III armour can be made of softer steel. Level III armour is rated for intermediate rifle cartridges like 5.56 NATO, and we are talking about ball ammunition because armor piercing 5.56 ammunition will penetrate level III armor. Ceramic plate will simple catch the round and spalling isn't really an issue. I apologize for the long winded comment. I am a bit of a firearm sperg. Yet when ball ammunition, so a steel or lead core projectile with a copper jacket, hits the armor in question it will utterly shatter the projectile into many small pieces. Just RUclips people shooting steel targets and you will see this effect. The benefits of steel armor is that if made of the right steel it will be more durable than ceramic or kevlar armor but also be able to stop 7.62 NATO ball. The downside is the spalling. That's why producers of modern armor produce steel ballistic armor they will put a antispalling coat on there. That also brings up another valid point. Do not shoot steel targets from a close distance, usually with 25 meters, and about 10 for pistols, because of spalling. Use paper, or rubber targets instead if shooting at close range.
That´s something I was thinking about the AR500 armour. It would be a nice armour being thin, protecting from knives etc. as well and unlike Kevlar transferring less of the impact on you, but imagining a bullet shattering on it and probably peppering your face and arm isn´t that nice...
@@komradearti9935 That's correct. Fragments of armor breaking off from an impact is called spalling and modern AFVs are pretty much all equipped with spall liners these days because even though the armor might stop a round from penetrating, the resulting spalling might be enough to Swiss cheese the crew. Bits of a round or shell that break from it exploding or shattering on impact against a hard target is called fragments or fragmentation.
Also, shrapnel is technically not the same thing as fragmentation.Technically speaking, shrapnel are bits of metal put into a shell that fly out when the shell explodes. However, now a days, shrapnel is used interchangeably with fragmentation which refers to bit of the shell itself that break off on impact or explosion.
@@komradearti9935 Like I said, technically speaking shrapnel is different from shell fragments but now a days nobody distinguishes between the two. The difference, I believe is in that shrapnel was originally a separately added part of the shell, something to make (more?) fragmentation for when the shell explodes. Now a days, the fragmentation is just built into the shell as (I believe) part of the shell body.
I'm not sure if that spalling.
Spalling is when a projectile strikes an object and causes pieces of that object to shoot off from the other side.
There were Polish anti tanks rifles designed to do this. It results in a rifle caliber catridge having the same effect as a 20mm.
When you watch the slow mo the arrows immediately snapped at the base where the arrow tip and wood shaft was joined, if somehow it was made stronger all the force would go into the target and would have a greater chance of going through
6:25 actually modern helmets are indeed designed to stop pistol and more recently rifle rounds. Materials have come a very long way in just the past 20 years.
I was just thinking, how long were the 15th century battles like the battle of Agincourt? I mean, with all that plate armor all over you, arrows were causing minimal casualties and most of the melee fights would last for hours until one of the dudes got his chainmail damaged enough for a hit to actually injure them enough to the point were they would ''lose'' the duel. Now, multiplying that by the number of men fealded in the battles, (that being sometimes even hundreds of thousands) and oh lord a battle could literally last for days!
I think it's cool you took time to learn a dead language.
Its not dead if people speak it.
Latin unlocks many languages and even helps with English literacy quite a bit.
@@badlaamaurukehu agreed
You mean French???
That's rough.
Nice one! Damn, I was thinking for half the video and came up with nothing...
Great video, as usual. However, one small statement from personal experience. I have witnessed more than once someone being struck in the helmet by a 7.62 mm round and surviving, albeit with a concusion. Modern helmets are not only designed to deflect and stop bullets, but definitely have.
Beautiful and clear analysis.
I loved that video, very curious as to what you're going to say, haha, still watching your response, you may now continue...
With metal protection of the throat, you are more protected, but you limit your head movements (and thus perhaps vision).
depends on how it's designed, why not have a look at how they tried to tackle this issue?
Loved the video honey! it was freakin great!
"Mate! You've got to do something about this!' That. Was. Sublime. I spat out my tea. Bravo my man. Bravo.
Point on the chain. The chain (and breastplate too) were made from modern steel using modern steel production methods. In other words the steel is purpose made to the desired thickness right from the start whereas medieval steel was made by taking thick iron stock and hammering it down to the desired thickness, making it denser. To make chain today they take washers that were punched out of the desired thickness steel plates. To make chain in the middle ages they had to hammer down iron stock to the thickness that would allow them to pull it into wire. Both the hammering and pulling making the iron denser, or harder. Then the wire had to be spun into springs and cut into rings before being hammered flat, making them even denser. An arrow going through modern reproduction chain means nothing. I want to see how actual forged armor holds up.
Side note about longbows. The English used the Welsh longbow, the Welsh being the people they encountered using it. The Welsh fought mainly using skirmish and ambush tactics, and were mainly fighting each other when they invented their bow. They wore little to no armor which means that unlike what you hear most people say the longbow was not invented to penetrate armor. Why make a weapon to do something that you have no need for? The higher draw weight bows are made for added distance not penetrative power. Same goes for crossbows. The large and heavy draw weight crossbows were designed for siege warfare to be used from behind fortifications, either the place being besieged or from behind the siege lines. They have nothing to do with penetrating armor. Being able to wound your enemies before they even get close enough to swing at you is the main purpose behind higher poundage bows, such as the longbow. BTW the reason Henry had so many longbowmen in his army was that he was conducting a siege and wasn't planning on fighting a pitched battle. When the French approached he marched off trying to avoid fighting. When it became apparent he was going to have to fight he maneuvered himself onto ground that he felt gave his army the advantage.
Love the idea of a French nobleman referring to his top blacksmith as "mate".
Great video and I love the source. One point on the shrapnel if a long now man saw a man at arms surrounded by people armoured in a way shrapnel would hurt them wouldn't he just aim for them in the first place?
I want to see a lance vs foot knight plated armor
A couple of points in response (both I've made at greater length in comments on Tod's own videos).
1: MUD
Firstly, we need to see Agincourt in the context of what we know abour First World War battles fought in much the same part of the world: namely, deep mud. It was October, it had been raining, and the battlefield had recently been ploughed.
Eye witnesses on both sides reported that the French advance had been knee deep in mud, and very tightly packed. English eyewitness reports that when a french knight went down, other french knights would fall on top of him. You can well imagine that, if you're in a dense pack of people urgently striving to advance through mud, if you fall, the person behind you is going to be pushed onto you by the people behind him. So either he tramples you into the mud, or he goes down too, and either way you're (literally) in deep shit.
Another eye witness accoount on the English side reports that french knights drowned in their helmets, and again you can well imagine that if you were pressed down into wet mud by people either falling on or walking over you, this could well happen.
2. MONEY
Timber for bow staves and for arrow shafts, feathers for arrow flights, linen for bow strings, were all plentiful and easy to work with ordinary peasant tools. So every part of the archer's equipment except the arrowheads was extremely cheap to produce in a subsistence peasant economy. An arrow head such as that used in Tod's film weighs about 28 grammes, a suit of armour weight abour 20,000 grammes. So the same amount of worked metal will make either one full suit of armour, or SEVEN HUNDRED arrows.
So if you imagine for a moment that the French and English quartermasters each had the same amount of money to spend on preparation for the battle, the English could have provided 700 arrows for each suit of armour the French had.
If you're standing on a muddy battle field in the best armour money can buy, and you're hit by seven hundred arrows, you're going down, even if none of them pierce your armour.
Love your videos and content, but as a (former) modern solider I can attest (as other likely have) that modern kevlar helmets can stop military rounds (probably only once, but that's usually enough!) The body armor of kevlar and ceramic plates is also capable of defeating modern combat rounds to a degree. While heavy, it almost reminds one of the segmenta lorca, and is surprising supple in its movements. Maybe a good video topic for you someday, you might be struck by the comparisons! All the Best!
I have written my bachelor thesis on this topic. Comparing Shakespeare’s Henry V. with the real character and the real events. I messaged you on FB and asked about a few things and mostly your opinion. Cheers, mate. :-) great video.
Idk if metatron says "hello number ones or hello noble ones." Either way I like it.
He says hello noble ones, fun fact he is a teacher and at he's students say hello noble ones
@@monkeygjluffy4487 i wish he had been my teacher.
Ciao Metatron! There is a new fascinating second video from Todd's Workshop on the same subject that goes much more in depth with the testing. Could you make a reaction video to that too? I think you and the historian will disagree on the amount of body covered by plate in 1415 and I think you'll be surprised about the efficiency of the Aventail. Let us know, grazie!