I prefer the episodes like this where he actually throws in anthropology and history instead of just showing a bunch of clips of people playing around with weapons.
They should totally bring back jousting as a modern sport, i mean, with today's composite technology they could make it relatively safe. And besides think of the marketing potential!
Effects of a lance blow. "He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head...he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him." Usamah ib Munquidh.
On mail vs lances. Michael Psellos' Chronographia talks about an attack on Isaac Komnenos (1057 AD) in which his armour protected him from two lances striking simultaneously:
Some of our men saw him... and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective... Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle.
@Mpampoulas21 Quote drawn from Michael Psellos, Chronographia E.R.A Sewter (trans), (New Haven: Yale University Press), 1953. VII.13 My source was myArmoury.c om saying he wore mail, but considering he was an emperor, there was a fair chance of him wearing both. I'll pick another example where we know without a doubt that the guy shrugging off the lance blow was in mail. The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh (1095-1188), with a couched lance against a Frankish knight (continued)
@Railstarfish The problem with Byzantine scholars is that they didn't have any military experience. For example Anna Komnene sayed that in the battle of Durrazo the byzantine horse archers shoot the horses of the Frankish knights (that's the true part) because their arrows didn't penetrate their armors (that's the false). Today's experiments shows that mail armor is not resistance to arrows. So the reason for shooting the horde is because it is a much larger aim. (continued)
@Mpampoulas21 If arrows went through mail easily, it would not have been the main armour for 1000+ years, particularly when expensive and moderately heavy. Modern tests showing arrows going through mail either use butted mail (which is a strictly modern invention not designed to protect) or stretching out a square of mail on a flat surface (stops the armour from bunching up when struck which is a major part of its protection, stops target from recoiling from blow, etc). Other tests show (cont)
@Railstarfish If you read the timothy Dawson books (byzantine cavalryman and infantryman) you will see that the Byzantines didn't credit much the mail armor (since they faced more enemies that hoce archering was their main battle tactic).
As for you next example, In that example armor did failed against the lance. The knight didn't die because the saracen didn't aim correctly and didn't hit him in a vital organ of vain.
@Mpampoulas21 mail being resistant to thrusts. watch?v=kAm8FTScXWA and watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM for examples. Also watch?v=mik6Ghy9kYs 6 minutes in shows arrows bouncing off. Also, Usamah ibn Munquidh didn't say he struck a wound but it was nonlethal, he says his lance did not wound the knight because of the mail. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where any source says his lance went through but hit somewhere nonvital.
@Railstarfish watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM ARMA HELLAS!! Dude i was in that organisation!!! :D. Anyway in that video there is a clear armor fail to protect. Ok armor haven't been damaged but it cleary didn't protect, all hit are fatal.
As for Usamah. He is not very clear about the insinted. We can not be sure how the lance hit the knight. From his description i believe that it was a glance hit and not a strate one.A
@Mpampoulas21 All hits are fatal? Thrust 1 (at 1:20) did not penetrate at all. Thrust 2 & 3 (at 1.51) penetrates 1.2 inches of which most of that was padding. Thrust 4 (2:30) traps the blade, more likely fatal to the guy using the sword than the guy in the armour. Sword XVa does better, but 2 inches is not a clear fatal hit, particularly when part of that is padding.
Usamah may have not hit squarely, I think a couched lance could sometimes pierce mail, but not easily. Also non-pierce still hurts
@Mpampoulas21 The arrow vid? It shows mail doing a marvellous job of stopping the arrow. I quote, "Did not penetrate back to the back side, and in fact, that pretty much stopped it." The arrow was lodged tight in the mail and the penetration is less than "4 fingers thickness" I read suggested for an arming coat. If there was a jupon involved as well the arrow would be harmless.
It is a pleasure to meet someone from ARMA, but are you sure you're sending me the right videos? ;)
@Railstarfish The point is that it is not neccesairy to penetrate back to back to kill a guy. That arrow penetrate the mail enough to hit a vital organ or a blood vessel (well not all the major ones). From my point of view such armor penetrations is unaccepted especially since lamellar and scare armors are much more resistanced to such hits.
@Mpampoulas21 The arrow penetrated maybe 1 finger-width, and the figure I have read quoted for the expected thickness of gambesons and arming coats is 4 fingers thickness (which is probably a thick example, but factor in the leather and it's probably 2-3 fingers thick). So the arrow would not have even reached skin. The arrow was stuck tight in one of the rings, not getting any deeper, so the mail had done its job.
Byzantine lamellar was more resistant, but that was more like brigandine.
@Mpampoulas21 Also I made a mistake, Usamah probably hit squarely, judging his description of knocking the Frankish knight nearly upside down in the saddle.
1) riveted chainmail is great armour, even more with the gambeson underneath that protected against the blows.
2) the greathelm was a warhelm for rich knights all since the 13e century
3) Steel shields were NEVER used in history, way to heavy and the wooden shields gave enough protection. I saw so many mistakes with the other episodes too that im wondering if he knows what he is talking about
@waterzoip The chainmail was a good defense as long as the opponent didn't thrust his weapon into you. However, the mail was much more flexable than the plate armour made later in history so that you can dodge, duck, and move more easily.
it follows the basic idea : protect against cuts by giving you a steel skin
and they did unriveted chainmail, do you really think no one in the middle ages made an unriveted chainmail because it was faster and cheaper to make? c'mon =P, that's simply pure logic and people also found sources
but now it's sure that it's useless against all kind of arrows and thrusting weapons
@waterzoip : You don't seem to understand. Unriveted chainmail can be cut straight through by a sword. It will simply fall apart. They did NOT make chainmail that was unriveted for combat, and if someone did, then they would have swiftly met their end if they were struck. I've made the same mistake before, thinking that it didn't matter, until my chainmail shirt fell apart from a single stroke.
@Kingofsomething87 Your taking his statement out of context. When peter woodward said that chainmail was useless, he ment that it was useless for protection against the lance. Mail was strongest when pitted against slashing weapons. Arrows, spears, lances, and daggers are all piercing arms and would go straight through even high quality chainmail.
@Slovellable Chainmail was not just designed for slashing attacks. The spear and bow were the most common weapons used in the battlefield. Nobody would bother spending a fortune on chainmail if it did not protect it from piercing attacks.
For further proof I recomend your read the memoirs of Usamah ibn Munqidh called "The book of contemplation". He recalls many incidents where he saw spear thrusts failing against mail.
I also recomend you read Joinville's book about the 7th crusade.
@Kingofsomething87 chainmail is verry good for protecting against piercing however, you still feel the shock of the impact. the sword may not go through the chainmail and into your body however the sword will still shove into you and knock the wind out of you. kind of like being punched in the stomach realy hard. that's why plate armor was superior in my opinion. but there could be advantages of chainmail being better then plate armor that i dont know of so who knows =P
@ninja909 what are you talking about - almost everything you've said is the complete opposite of the facts - chainmail is terrible at protecting you from piercing hits. Watch:
weapons that made britain - armour
its on youtube and you will be granted all the information you could ask for!
@Isthisthelongestname It has tests against the lance strike at full gallop. That's on the extreme scale of a thrusting attack. Chainmail would nicely protect against sword thrusts and arrows from a long distance.
@Kingofsomething87 Hi great info btw, could you recommend the best book with actual account of ancient or medieval combat? Im doing research for a script and already know a lot about the warfare but have read few detailed accounts. This would be very helpfull if you could thanks
@clintdelicious Usamah ibn Munqidh wrote a book chronicling his experience in the many battles he was in. If you want to gain a good idea what battles in the middle ages were like I reccomend you read his "Book of Contemplation".
@TheMysticMage Thats actually a common misconception. Historical mail provided excellent protection against spear thrusts. There are many chronicled incidents when even cavalry lances failed against mail.
@TheMysticMage Not necessarily. But even if they were, you cant kill someone by just pricking him with the tip of a lance. Mail prevents most spear and lance heads from being thrusted into the flesh because the rings are usually small enough to provent the lance from going more than a centimentre deep.
@TheMysticMage And if a warrior is wearing padding or several layers of cloth he will most likely not be injured. This doesnt mean that lance heads cant go through mail. If a horseman used the couched lance technique or delivered a very powerful lance thrust while both horsemen were galloping then there is a good chance that the mail may be penetrated. But in most instances mail provided very good protection against thrusting attacks.
@TheMysticMage lol even though its very unlikely for you to be able to stab through historical mail, its still a small risk that I wouldnt take. The same applies to shooting a bullet at a Kevlar armoured man.
@Kingofsomething87 You know what my biggest problem with armor and medieval weapons is, it's all theoretical or practice on dummies. I can hardly believe a sword cleaving armor apart unless i really see it happening in a serious fight. But i guess i should be happy that im not in those times lol
How to win a medieval tournament: step one- do not take lessons from this guy.
APSHEK 2 weeks ago
HOW TO WIN A MEDIEVAL TOURNAMENT: laxative at opponents' horses
CorvusCorpseater 1 month ago
Any Chance you or anyone has the Conquest Episodes for Gladiators and for the Duel (the full one not that snippet currently online)?
AnteaterCharger 1 month ago
3:33 4 times or 8:14 3
MatriXtyle 4 months ago
I prefer the episodes like this where he actually throws in anthropology and history instead of just showing a bunch of clips of people playing around with weapons.
neothespian 4 months ago
such cheesy acting.. :3
robotfiendandmaxxus 5 months ago
8:56 I thought that they killed him for real.
TechnoManiac2 6 months ago
@TechnoManiac2 I almost hoped they killed him for real.
Titanwriter 5 months ago
It was extra time to find part 1.
TechnoManiac2 6 months ago
i want to see spartans in this
ReCoNXxPRiiMEXx 7 months ago
7:32 lmfao
blackbelt807 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unhorsed - brilliant word ! XD ( at least for an non native speaker XD )
GermanSwordMaster 8 months ago
unhorsed - brilliant word ! XD ( at least for an non-nativ speaker XD )
GermanSwordMaster 8 months ago
They should totally bring back jousting as a modern sport, i mean, with today's composite technology they could make it relatively safe. And besides think of the marketing potential!
VikingSpaceNinja 8 months ago
i wish he was my history teacher
jayson840 9 months ago
Effects of a lance blow. "He bent sideways so much that his head reached his stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head...he then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him." Usamah ib Munquidh.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
On mail vs lances. Michael Psellos' Chronographia talks about an attack on Isaac Komnenos (1057 AD) in which his armour protected him from two lances striking simultaneously:
Some of our men saw him... and attacked him with lances, driving in on both flanks, but the iron shafts proved ineffective... Meanwhile he budged in neither direction, for as they pushed him with equal force this way and that, he remained poised and balanced in the middle.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish Well, Isaac Komnenos didn't wear mail, but a Byzantine lamellar armor (it differes from the other lamellar tyoes).
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 Quote drawn from Michael Psellos, Chronographia E.R.A Sewter (trans), (New Haven: Yale University Press), 1953. VII.13 My source was myArmoury.c om saying he wore mail, but considering he was an emperor, there was a fair chance of him wearing both. I'll pick another example where we know without a doubt that the guy shrugging off the lance blow was in mail. The memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh (1095-1188), with a couched lance against a Frankish knight (continued)
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish The problem with Byzantine scholars is that they didn't have any military experience. For example Anna Komnene sayed that in the battle of Durrazo the byzantine horse archers shoot the horses of the Frankish knights (that's the true part) because their arrows didn't penetrate their armors (that's the false). Today's experiments shows that mail armor is not resistance to arrows. So the reason for shooting the horde is because it is a much larger aim. (continued)
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 If arrows went through mail easily, it would not have been the main armour for 1000+ years, particularly when expensive and moderately heavy. Modern tests showing arrows going through mail either use butted mail (which is a strictly modern invention not designed to protect) or stretching out a square of mail on a flat surface (stops the armour from bunching up when struck which is a major part of its protection, stops target from recoiling from blow, etc). Other tests show (cont)
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish If you read the timothy Dawson books (byzantine cavalryman and infantryman) you will see that the Byzantines didn't credit much the mail armor (since they faced more enemies that hoce archering was their main battle tactic).
As for you next example, In that example armor did failed against the lance. The knight didn't die because the saracen didn't aim correctly and didn't hit him in a vital organ of vain.
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 mail being resistant to thrusts. watch?v=kAm8FTScXWA and watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM for examples. Also watch?v=mik6Ghy9kYs 6 minutes in shows arrows bouncing off. Also, Usamah ibn Munquidh didn't say he struck a wound but it was nonlethal, he says his lance did not wound the knight because of the mail. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me where any source says his lance went through but hit somewhere nonvital.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM ARMA HELLAS!! Dude i was in that organisation!!! :D. Anyway in that video there is a clear armor fail to protect. Ok armor haven't been damaged but it cleary didn't protect, all hit are fatal.
As for Usamah. He is not very clear about the insinted. We can not be sure how the lance hit the knight. From his description i believe that it was a glance hit and not a strate one.A
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 All hits are fatal? Thrust 1 (at 1:20) did not penetrate at all. Thrust 2 & 3 (at 1.51) penetrates 1.2 inches of which most of that was padding. Thrust 4 (2:30) traps the blade, more likely fatal to the guy using the sword than the guy in the armour. Sword XVa does better, but 2 inches is not a clear fatal hit, particularly when part of that is padding.
Usamah may have not hit squarely, I think a couched lance could sometimes pierce mail, but not easily. Also non-pierce still hurts
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 Also watch this watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI&feature=related on how easily an arrow penetrate mail
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 The arrow vid? It shows mail doing a marvellous job of stopping the arrow. I quote, "Did not penetrate back to the back side, and in fact, that pretty much stopped it." The arrow was lodged tight in the mail and the penetration is less than "4 fingers thickness" I read suggested for an arming coat. If there was a jupon involved as well the arrow would be harmless.
It is a pleasure to meet someone from ARMA, but are you sure you're sending me the right videos? ;)
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Railstarfish The point is that it is not neccesairy to penetrate back to back to kill a guy. That arrow penetrate the mail enough to hit a vital organ or a blood vessel (well not all the major ones). From my point of view such armor penetrations is unaccepted especially since lamellar and scare armors are much more resistanced to such hits.
:)
Mpampoulas21 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 The arrow penetrated maybe 1 finger-width, and the figure I have read quoted for the expected thickness of gambesons and arming coats is 4 fingers thickness (which is probably a thick example, but factor in the leather and it's probably 2-3 fingers thick). So the arrow would not have even reached skin. The arrow was stuck tight in one of the rings, not getting any deeper, so the mail had done its job.
Byzantine lamellar was more resistant, but that was more like brigandine.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
@Mpampoulas21 Also I made a mistake, Usamah probably hit squarely, judging his description of knocking the Frankish knight nearly upside down in the saddle.
Railstarfish 9 months ago
fun to watch...but there is so much stupidity T_T
Sutorenja 10 months ago
this guy hams it up wayy too much.
mouthforwar17 11 months ago
Is the Conquest episode where they test out Biblical age Palestinian weapons on youtube? If anyone finds it, please send me the link.
Thanks
jmikejapan 1 year ago
what the hell.
1) riveted chainmail is great armour, even more with the gambeson underneath that protected against the blows.
2) the greathelm was a warhelm for rich knights all since the 13e century
3) Steel shields were NEVER used in history, way to heavy and the wooden shields gave enough protection. I saw so many mistakes with the other episodes too that im wondering if he knows what he is talking about
Mortalkombat17 1 year ago
man that guy is awsome x)
oly355 1 year ago
I love that they put a "focus here" circle when they were talking about the horse, as if I didn't know what a horse was.
infernocanuck 1 year ago
this seris is great all r in my favs
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
keep broadcasting these series, tanhk you hudson2150 love your videos!
Diabokid12 2 years ago
I dont know why, but for some reason Peter woodward is very biased against chainmail. It was excellent armour when riveted.
Kingofsomething87 2 years ago 31
@Kingofsomething87 even not riveted =O
waterzoip 1 year ago 15
@waterzoip The chainmail was a good defense as long as the opponent didn't thrust his weapon into you. However, the mail was much more flexable than the plate armour made later in history so that you can dodge, duck, and move more easily.
greatsharkman 1 year ago
@waterzoip : Actually, unrivited chainmail is next to useless. They never made chainmail that was meant for combat in any other way.
Halofreakanoid 8 months ago
@Halofreakanoid not useless
it follows the basic idea : protect against cuts by giving you a steel skin
and they did unriveted chainmail, do you really think no one in the middle ages made an unriveted chainmail because it was faster and cheaper to make? c'mon =P, that's simply pure logic and people also found sources
but now it's sure that it's useless against all kind of arrows and thrusting weapons
waterzoip 8 months ago
@waterzoip : You don't seem to understand. Unriveted chainmail can be cut straight through by a sword. It will simply fall apart. They did NOT make chainmail that was unriveted for combat, and if someone did, then they would have swiftly met their end if they were struck. I've made the same mistake before, thinking that it didn't matter, until my chainmail shirt fell apart from a single stroke.
Halofreakanoid 8 months ago
@waterzoip why did the West not adopt scale armour like eastern armies?
iamnobodyism 8 months ago
@iamnobodyism Because it was heavyer.
rokm13 8 months ago
@rokm13 then why did eastern armies adopt them? westerners are generaly bigger and tougher than easterners
iamnobodyism 8 months ago
@waterzoip : Actually, non-riveted maille is next to useless.
Halofreakanoid 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Kingofsomething87 Your taking his statement out of context. When peter woodward said that chainmail was useless, he ment that it was useless for protection against the lance. Mail was strongest when pitted against slashing weapons. Arrows, spears, lances, and daggers are all piercing arms and would go straight through even high quality chainmail.
Slovellable 1 year ago
@Slovellable Chainmail was not just designed for slashing attacks. The spear and bow were the most common weapons used in the battlefield. Nobody would bother spending a fortune on chainmail if it did not protect it from piercing attacks.
For further proof I recomend your read the memoirs of Usamah ibn Munqidh called "The book of contemplation". He recalls many incidents where he saw spear thrusts failing against mail.
I also recomend you read Joinville's book about the 7th crusade.
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 chainmail is verry good for protecting against piercing however, you still feel the shock of the impact. the sword may not go through the chainmail and into your body however the sword will still shove into you and knock the wind out of you. kind of like being punched in the stomach realy hard. that's why plate armor was superior in my opinion. but there could be advantages of chainmail being better then plate armor that i dont know of so who knows =P
ninja909 1 year ago
@ninja909 what are you talking about - almost everything you've said is the complete opposite of the facts - chainmail is terrible at protecting you from piercing hits. Watch:
weapons that made britain - armour
its on youtube and you will be granted all the information you could ask for!
Isthisthelongestname 1 year ago
@Isthisthelongestname i saw a video on here for rivited chainmail once , it protected against a pierce. as long as its rivited its safe.
ninja909 1 year ago
@Isthisthelongestname It has tests against the lance strike at full gallop. That's on the extreme scale of a thrusting attack. Chainmail would nicely protect against sword thrusts and arrows from a long distance.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 Hi great info btw, could you recommend the best book with actual account of ancient or medieval combat? Im doing research for a script and already know a lot about the warfare but have read few detailed accounts. This would be very helpfull if you could thanks
clintdelicious 10 months ago
@clintdelicious Usamah ibn Munqidh wrote a book chronicling his experience in the many battles he was in. If you want to gain a good idea what battles in the middle ages were like I reccomend you read his "Book of Contemplation".
Good Luck
Kingofsomething87 10 months ago
@Kingofsomething87 lol i know right
kittymime 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 cept if thye wanted to stab you ;.;
TheMysticMage 7 months ago
@TheMysticMage Thats actually a common misconception. Historical mail provided excellent protection against spear thrusts. There are many chronicled incidents when even cavalry lances failed against mail.
Kingofsomething87 7 months ago
@Kingofsomething87 arent the ends of cavalry lances smaller than the rings in mail?
TheMysticMage 7 months ago
@TheMysticMage Not necessarily. But even if they were, you cant kill someone by just pricking him with the tip of a lance. Mail prevents most spear and lance heads from being thrusted into the flesh because the rings are usually small enough to provent the lance from going more than a centimentre deep.
Kingofsomething87 7 months ago
@TheMysticMage And if a warrior is wearing padding or several layers of cloth he will most likely not be injured. This doesnt mean that lance heads cant go through mail. If a horseman used the couched lance technique or delivered a very powerful lance thrust while both horsemen were galloping then there is a good chance that the mail may be penetrated. But in most instances mail provided very good protection against thrusting attacks.
Kingofsomething87 7 months ago
@Kingofsomething87 Then put on a mail shirt and let me stab you >=(
TheMysticMage 7 months ago
@TheMysticMage lol even though its very unlikely for you to be able to stab through historical mail, its still a small risk that I wouldnt take. The same applies to shooting a bullet at a Kevlar armoured man.
Kingofsomething87 7 months ago
@Kingofsomething87 You know what my biggest problem with armor and medieval weapons is, it's all theoretical or practice on dummies. I can hardly believe a sword cleaving armor apart unless i really see it happening in a serious fight. But i guess i should be happy that im not in those times lol
Samael16661 3 months ago