I would for once like to see these test done on iron that has never gone through modern process. The metal for their tests is way too pure, try it with bog iron that has been pounded to get impurities out. We know the longbow was effective,at least against certain areas because it was used long after every other nation went firearm. A lance would have a good chance to pierce an authentic coat of plates, chain wasn't worn underneath either.
Mail wasnt only made to stop glancing blows. There are examples of mail stopping spear thrusts as well as arrows. Mail when worn with padding beneath is an excellent form of protection.
Punching someone in the face with an armored gauntlet can very much kill. Full plate means that your entire body basically becomes brass knuckles. Some armor designs even had spikes on the knees or elbows, too.
why has this series never mentioned the bodkin tip. this was like having an ice picc for an arrow head, putting all the force on the smallest point possible. it literally punched your fuccing ticcet. and i know they were used at agincourt, but there has been no mention of it. it was specifically designed to go right through anything
@Kisk79 Actually there's two types of bodkin, long and short. Long being designed for penetrating maille, whilst short was an attempt to make an arrowhead capable of penetrating plate, which it did, however in real life it was likely that it would simply glance of due too the movement of the target.
@Kisk79 the Needle point Bodkin was designed against maille yes, though if you look at i belive its called the type 16 bodkin, that was designed to go through plate armour very effectivly. The major problem with the head though was that it needed a solid purchase to do its damage
@Kisk79 Not true at all. Mail was largely out of use except around the joints of plate. They were not used together like in fantasy. Mail was the same weight and less protection for much more labor. It was slightly more flexible, but considering you can run in plate it isn't an issue. These tests are flawed because their sheet metal is treated in a blast furnace, no iron before 1828 could withstand a steam engine, so we know armor was not that strong. Earlier furnaces made iron too brittle.
@TheCFTube What exactly are you arguing against, when you say "not true at all". What you have just said, is a complete non sequitur to the comment I've made. It does not follow in any sort of fashion.
@Kisk79 I was saying that bodkin arrows were not just used against mail. They were used until the 17th century, long after mail had fallen out of use. So they were clearly meant to be used against plate in the middle ages. I was also stating that the re-creationists tests that plate couldn't be penetrated are flawed, because they are using refined steel for their tests.
@TheCFTube Then you are incorrect, because all evidence of bodkin use was meant for mail. Plate armour, even munitions plate, was virtually impervious to arrows munitions plate could only be guaranteed to be penetrated and cause an injury at a very close distance. The later Milanese plate that they test, arrows would not harm the man inside. As for the metal, it was made using traditional methods of the time. The blast furnace was already in use by this point in history in Europe.
@Kisk79 You are right that Milanese plate, or any hardened was very resistant. But the joints were still weak, and bodkin were definitely used long after mail was gone. European armor was refined in bloom forges, Asian as well to be exact. Coal and coke fired blast furnaces produced brittle pig iron that had to be further refined, making wrought iron. We know from English accounts during the Welsh wars that iron greaves were pierced all the way through and into the horse.
@TheCFTube against the irons and steels used in full plate armour as a flat plate the longbow with bodkin arrow could indeed penetreate the plate however the armours plates are contoured to give the arrow no flatness to penetrate the velocity of the arrow was not sufficient to get a solid bite on the contours so they ricocheted away this is why the longbodkins can penetrate thicker metal shields but not the plate armour itself
@Kisk79 I agree although the longbow was powerfull the windlass heavy crossbow was the first armour peircing weapon for plate and the windlas heavy crosbows power made it basically a cut down artilery piece and with the workshop I guess this is connected to one of the armourers who has worked at the royal armouries museum or the museum itself
@OriginalOwner777 Agreed, the heavy crossbow loaded by a windlass was a fearsome weapon to behold. An artillery piece designed for anti-personnel use, primarily heavily armoured leaders. It's also said to have been used for hunting large game as well, since it gave a very quick kill, making the meat tender.
@TheCFTube Actually CFT the early weaker plate the knight wore leather then chain then plate weighing aprox 200 pounds in total thus a knight would only battle for aprox 30 minutes
@OriginalOwner777 where are you getting 200 lb. from? Are you saying they wore 200 lb. worth of armor on themselves? If so, this is ludicrous. If you mean 200 lb. for the total weight of the man, though, then that makes much more sense. Regarding 30 minute combat times, there is really no way to know how long a knight would have continuously fought, even in a pitched battle. It seems likely that they would have retreated behind any friendly lines to rest and resupply and reform if possible.
@aerik9 The Lightest and most advanced version of full plate armour was the spanish plate which weighed in at 80 pounds under half the weight of any other full plate armour at the time and where did I get this information?? Leeds Royal Armories Master Armourer and history it is also documented historically that the 80 pound spanish armour was under half the weight of any other full plate armour at the time and 200 pounds in armour that would make a night less than 10 stone
@OriginalOwner777 Are we talking about combat-usable armor here? If so, an 80 lb. suit would be pretty stifling, but if other suits were to weigh twice that or more, they would be absolutely cripplingly heavy and worthless in battle. If you're referring to tournament armor, however, this makes much more sense. Tournament armor didn't require all that much maneuverability for the joust, since horses moved in relatively straight lines. The suits did weigh as much as 100 lb., and were thicker.
@aerik9 Regarding the most advanced full plate of the time, the winner would have to go to Gothic harness, which weighed around 45 lb. This was very light when distributed over the whole body, and was very maneuverable because of this low weight. Breathability in armor like that would be stifling, but it would far worse to fight in the kinds of immensely heavy armors you suggest. This simply isn't feasible. I believe the Master Armourer you speak of was referring to advanced tourney armor.
@aerik9 I am talking full plate armour however most knights on the battle field did not wear full plate armour unless they where mounted troops only. For mounted troops the weight of full plate was insane however for foot knights the armour was a lot lighter due to legs and arms being often just protected by leather and strategic plates. The 80 pounds suit was the toledo made full plate using the first steel over the previous iron
@OriginalOwner777 full plate for the battlefield would be different than full plate for the tourney field. Tourney armor had specialized use in the joust, and so were relatively thick with extra plates often added to areas such as the left shoulder/neck. Most knights from 1400 onwards would likely have worn significant amounts of plate, mounted or not. The weight of a mounted knight's armor wouldn't be "insane" or else they really wouldn't be able to get up after being unhorsed.
@OriginalOwner777 Also, steel had been in use for centuries, even during Roman times. Purpose-made as an alloy of carbon and iron, its quality tended to increase as the centuries passed and new metallurgy techniques were used. Anything close to pure iron would've been a horrendous material to make any armor or weapons out of. It is far too soft. Artwork of the period from 1400 onward frequently shows knights in battle protected by full plate, including manuals on armored combat.
@OriginalOwner777 Also, maille would likely be worn only under joints and other exposed areas, to limit the weight of the armor. Seeing as leather would do little or nothing that the metallic layers aren't already doing, and that the leather would be extremely hot and tiring, it's more likely that cloth was worn as a basic buffer layer between skin and the metallic armors.
Doesn't matter. Bodkins were soft iron. Still no chance against full plate. Neither modern tests nor period writing suggest that Bodkin arrows ever flat-out penetrated plate.
@Magni56 that i didn't know i thought they were steel. makes sense for ease of production, though. but reading down kisk79 says there WERE two types of bodkins one fro maille and one for plate. ohwell, i guess i can be as well read as i want, but my info is only gonna be so detailed in N.W. washington compared to the info in the country of origin. besides part of my knowledge comes from family tradition, which can always be an iffy source
Well, it's something of a disputed topic. The problem is that pretty much all bodkin heads found are iron. And, of course, there's differrent grades of plate armour. A 15th or 16th century mass-produced munitions harness worn by the rank&file won't fare quite as well as a full grade plate suit, which in turn won't do as well as a personal plate armor specifically tailored to one man. (These last ones were masterworks commanding prices for which one could buy a small estate!)
But it's still pretty much established that trying anything short of a heavy crossbow or a firearm against plate meant to rely more on luck than anything else. You're more likely to wound the guy by hitting a weakspot than penetrate the actual armor. On a moving target, it's a complete crapshoot, especially given that having a huge horde of people coming at you with the intent to murder the shit out of you tends to be a detriment to ones aim.
@Magni56 thats definatly so about the different gradients of armor, but it is common knowledge to any fighter who has been in life threatening situation, time slows but your brain and body doesn't. i've lost fights because i didn't take it seriously. alternately ive come out on top because i was so scared, despite the odds. besides if i ever saw a plate mailed warrior bearing down on me, id just shoot the horse.
@SpiritBearTotem there were 2 types of bodkin - the one for chain was especially long and thin, whilst the one for plate was short, thick and strong. English bowmen (And I'm sure others too) were issued with a variety of heads, up to 16, I think, for various armour types, enemies and situatioons. In any case, concerning your "shoot the horse!" comment, that's why they had broad heads... better than dead horse is a pain crazed horse getting in the way of everyone else..... mwahahahaha :D
i think i'd personally bel the studded leather with breast plate, bracers, and shin gaurds(grieves i believe) and a simple cap with as studded leather nape. ive always thought this combo would give the best protection that does't hamper vision or mobilty.
@GollyCat Why broad heads? Besides, imortal was only making a point, the UK is a nanny state, it wishes to seperate the people from anything even distantly related to violence.. in which it fails miserably
@Pawnbroker00 Unfortunately bow hunting in the UK was outlawed many years ago and broadhead arrow tips were restricted as a result (by virtue of the fact they are near essential for clean(ish) dispatch of prey). Expanding upon my previous comment, it is actually the use of broadheads for anything other than 'display purposes' that is banned. However, i've noticed they've become more available lately ;) ...and yes i agree, the UK certainly is a nanny state!
@GollyCat I know.. its rubbish because theres still a lot of these outlawed things floating around on the black market. Someone i know, had a dodgy old pre-ban switchknife which bounced up in his pocket and stabbed his thigh lol
Mike Loads has the best job in the world.
Domo230 1 week ago
I would for once like to see these test done on iron that has never gone through modern process. The metal for their tests is way too pure, try it with bog iron that has been pounded to get impurities out. We know the longbow was effective,at least against certain areas because it was used long after every other nation went firearm. A lance would have a good chance to pierce an authentic coat of plates, chain wasn't worn underneath either.
TheCFTube 1 month ago
I want to be with Mike during the zombie apocalypse. He's a mega badass.
PeaveyESP 7 months ago 2
Mail wasnt only made to stop glancing blows. There are examples of mail stopping spear thrusts as well as arrows. Mail when worn with padding beneath is an excellent form of protection.
Kingofsomething87 8 months ago
Mike Loades > Chuc--- JESUS.
whowantsabighug 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol he sounds funny at 4:59
puffmasta3000 1 year ago
lol he sounds funny at 4:59
puffmasta3000 1 year ago
GREATEST HISTORIAN EVER
VigisKane 1 year ago
does armor even counts as a weapon?
Del249 1 year ago
@Del249 Of course, if you can manage to fall on top of an enemy wearing full plate, I bet that'd hurt.
extragunbon 1 year ago
@extragunbon Indeed. A full on body slam butt first.... Think Mario's ground pound attack.... Flatten and a bloody mess.
SamPD2 1 year ago
@Del249
Punching someone in the face with an armored gauntlet can very much kill. Full plate means that your entire body basically becomes brass knuckles. Some armor designs even had spikes on the knees or elbows, too.
Magni56 1 year ago
why has this series never mentioned the bodkin tip. this was like having an ice picc for an arrow head, putting all the force on the smallest point possible. it literally punched your fuccing ticcet. and i know they were used at agincourt, but there has been no mention of it. it was specifically designed to go right through anything
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
@SpiritBearTotem Bodkin was designed to penetrate chainmaille, not plate.
Kisk79 1 year ago 23
@Kisk79 Actually there's two types of bodkin, long and short. Long being designed for penetrating maille, whilst short was an attempt to make an arrowhead capable of penetrating plate, which it did, however in real life it was likely that it would simply glance of due too the movement of the target.
uvkgn 1 year ago
@Kisk79 Lol the lad in the documentary that it's wrong to call it chain mail, it's mail... :)
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@Kisk79
Also, the bodkin arrow does get a mention in this series. The very best italian armor was able to stop it.
92abcdefg 1 year ago
@Kisk79 the Needle point Bodkin was designed against maille yes, though if you look at i belive its called the type 16 bodkin, that was designed to go through plate armour very effectivly. The major problem with the head though was that it needed a solid purchase to do its damage
okamigau 6 months ago
@Kisk79 Not true at all. Mail was largely out of use except around the joints of plate. They were not used together like in fantasy. Mail was the same weight and less protection for much more labor. It was slightly more flexible, but considering you can run in plate it isn't an issue. These tests are flawed because their sheet metal is treated in a blast furnace, no iron before 1828 could withstand a steam engine, so we know armor was not that strong. Earlier furnaces made iron too brittle.
TheCFTube 1 month ago
@TheCFTube What exactly are you arguing against, when you say "not true at all". What you have just said, is a complete non sequitur to the comment I've made. It does not follow in any sort of fashion.
Kisk79 1 month ago
@Kisk79 I was saying that bodkin arrows were not just used against mail. They were used until the 17th century, long after mail had fallen out of use. So they were clearly meant to be used against plate in the middle ages. I was also stating that the re-creationists tests that plate couldn't be penetrated are flawed, because they are using refined steel for their tests.
TheCFTube 1 month ago
@TheCFTube Then you are incorrect, because all evidence of bodkin use was meant for mail. Plate armour, even munitions plate, was virtually impervious to arrows munitions plate could only be guaranteed to be penetrated and cause an injury at a very close distance. The later Milanese plate that they test, arrows would not harm the man inside. As for the metal, it was made using traditional methods of the time. The blast furnace was already in use by this point in history in Europe.
Kisk79 1 month ago
@Kisk79 You are right that Milanese plate, or any hardened was very resistant. But the joints were still weak, and bodkin were definitely used long after mail was gone. European armor was refined in bloom forges, Asian as well to be exact. Coal and coke fired blast furnaces produced brittle pig iron that had to be further refined, making wrought iron. We know from English accounts during the Welsh wars that iron greaves were pierced all the way through and into the horse.
TheCFTube 1 month ago
@Kisk79 The longbows were much stronger, and the iron much weaker than in these tests.
TheCFTube 1 month ago
@TheCFTube against the irons and steels used in full plate armour as a flat plate the longbow with bodkin arrow could indeed penetreate the plate however the armours plates are contoured to give the arrow no flatness to penetrate the velocity of the arrow was not sufficient to get a solid bite on the contours so they ricocheted away this is why the longbodkins can penetrate thicker metal shields but not the plate armour itself
OriginalOwner777 3 weeks ago
@Kisk79 I agree although the longbow was powerfull the windlass heavy crossbow was the first armour peircing weapon for plate and the windlas heavy crosbows power made it basically a cut down artilery piece and with the workshop I guess this is connected to one of the armourers who has worked at the royal armouries museum or the museum itself
OriginalOwner777 3 weeks ago
@OriginalOwner777 Agreed, the heavy crossbow loaded by a windlass was a fearsome weapon to behold. An artillery piece designed for anti-personnel use, primarily heavily armoured leaders. It's also said to have been used for hunting large game as well, since it gave a very quick kill, making the meat tender.
Kisk79 3 weeks ago
@TheCFTube Actually CFT the early weaker plate the knight wore leather then chain then plate weighing aprox 200 pounds in total thus a knight would only battle for aprox 30 minutes
OriginalOwner777 3 weeks ago
@OriginalOwner777 where are you getting 200 lb. from? Are you saying they wore 200 lb. worth of armor on themselves? If so, this is ludicrous. If you mean 200 lb. for the total weight of the man, though, then that makes much more sense. Regarding 30 minute combat times, there is really no way to know how long a knight would have continuously fought, even in a pitched battle. It seems likely that they would have retreated behind any friendly lines to rest and resupply and reform if possible.
aerik9 1 week ago
Comment removed
aerik9 1 week ago
@aerik9 The Lightest and most advanced version of full plate armour was the spanish plate which weighed in at 80 pounds under half the weight of any other full plate armour at the time and where did I get this information?? Leeds Royal Armories Master Armourer and history it is also documented historically that the 80 pound spanish armour was under half the weight of any other full plate armour at the time and 200 pounds in armour that would make a night less than 10 stone
OriginalOwner777 1 week ago
@OriginalOwner777 Are we talking about combat-usable armor here? If so, an 80 lb. suit would be pretty stifling, but if other suits were to weigh twice that or more, they would be absolutely cripplingly heavy and worthless in battle. If you're referring to tournament armor, however, this makes much more sense. Tournament armor didn't require all that much maneuverability for the joust, since horses moved in relatively straight lines. The suits did weigh as much as 100 lb., and were thicker.
aerik9 1 week ago
@aerik9 Regarding the most advanced full plate of the time, the winner would have to go to Gothic harness, which weighed around 45 lb. This was very light when distributed over the whole body, and was very maneuverable because of this low weight. Breathability in armor like that would be stifling, but it would far worse to fight in the kinds of immensely heavy armors you suggest. This simply isn't feasible. I believe the Master Armourer you speak of was referring to advanced tourney armor.
aerik9 1 week ago
@aerik9 I am talking full plate armour however most knights on the battle field did not wear full plate armour unless they where mounted troops only. For mounted troops the weight of full plate was insane however for foot knights the armour was a lot lighter due to legs and arms being often just protected by leather and strategic plates. The 80 pounds suit was the toledo made full plate using the first steel over the previous iron
OriginalOwner777 6 days ago
@OriginalOwner777 full plate for the battlefield would be different than full plate for the tourney field. Tourney armor had specialized use in the joust, and so were relatively thick with extra plates often added to areas such as the left shoulder/neck. Most knights from 1400 onwards would likely have worn significant amounts of plate, mounted or not. The weight of a mounted knight's armor wouldn't be "insane" or else they really wouldn't be able to get up after being unhorsed.
aerik9 6 days ago
@OriginalOwner777 Also, steel had been in use for centuries, even during Roman times. Purpose-made as an alloy of carbon and iron, its quality tended to increase as the centuries passed and new metallurgy techniques were used. Anything close to pure iron would've been a horrendous material to make any armor or weapons out of. It is far too soft. Artwork of the period from 1400 onward frequently shows knights in battle protected by full plate, including manuals on armored combat.
aerik9 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OriginalOwner777 Also, maille would likely be worn only under joints and other exposed areas, to limit the weight of the armor. Seeing as leather would do little or nothing that the metallic layers aren't already doing, and that the leather would be extremely hot and tiring, it's more likely that cloth was worn as a basic buffer layer between skin and the metallic armors.
aerik9 1 week ago
@SpiritBearTotem the arrow at 3:05 is a bodkin tip
lockbreak12 1 year ago
@lockbreak12 i can't tell but it could be. still there was no verbal mention that i heard. ohwell
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
@SpiritBearTotem
Doesn't matter. Bodkins were soft iron. Still no chance against full plate. Neither modern tests nor period writing suggest that Bodkin arrows ever flat-out penetrated plate.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 that i didn't know i thought they were steel. makes sense for ease of production, though. but reading down kisk79 says there WERE two types of bodkins one fro maille and one for plate. ohwell, i guess i can be as well read as i want, but my info is only gonna be so detailed in N.W. washington compared to the info in the country of origin. besides part of my knowledge comes from family tradition, which can always be an iffy source
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
@SpiritBearTotem
Well, it's something of a disputed topic. The problem is that pretty much all bodkin heads found are iron. And, of course, there's differrent grades of plate armour. A 15th or 16th century mass-produced munitions harness worn by the rank&file won't fare quite as well as a full grade plate suit, which in turn won't do as well as a personal plate armor specifically tailored to one man. (These last ones were masterworks commanding prices for which one could buy a small estate!)
Magni56 1 year ago
@SpiritBearTotem
But it's still pretty much established that trying anything short of a heavy crossbow or a firearm against plate meant to rely more on luck than anything else. You're more likely to wound the guy by hitting a weakspot than penetrate the actual armor. On a moving target, it's a complete crapshoot, especially given that having a huge horde of people coming at you with the intent to murder the shit out of you tends to be a detriment to ones aim.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 thats definatly so about the different gradients of armor, but it is common knowledge to any fighter who has been in life threatening situation, time slows but your brain and body doesn't. i've lost fights because i didn't take it seriously. alternately ive come out on top because i was so scared, despite the odds. besides if i ever saw a plate mailed warrior bearing down on me, id just shoot the horse.
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
@SpiritBearTotem there were 2 types of bodkin - the one for chain was especially long and thin, whilst the one for plate was short, thick and strong. English bowmen (And I'm sure others too) were issued with a variety of heads, up to 16, I think, for various armour types, enemies and situatioons. In any case, concerning your "shoot the horse!" comment, that's why they had broad heads... better than dead horse is a pain crazed horse getting in the way of everyone else..... mwahahahaha :D
Yockenthwaite1 10 months ago
i think i'd personally bel the studded leather with breast plate, bracers, and shin gaurds(grieves i believe) and a simple cap with as studded leather nape. ive always thought this combo would give the best protection that does't hamper vision or mobilty.
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
Comment removed
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
Great video. What battle did he mention were arrow proof armor appeared? Was it called the 'battle of Valoie" I can't figure out the spelling.
colddrake80 1 year ago
@colddrake80 Battle of Verneuil, 1424.
equallyeasilyfuqyou 1 year ago
@equallyeasilyfuqyou Thanks. What a mess of a battle that was.
colddrake80 1 year ago
:] ho0rayz
WickedSabbath18 1 year ago
Yay! :D
I've always prefered maille myelf. :P
SamGCampbell 1 year ago
Too bad, they're all BANNED IN BRITAIN!
lmortal 1 year ago
@lmortal What are banned in Britain?
whowantsabighug 1 year ago
@lmortal whats banned? these vidoes?
59spore 1 year ago
@lmortal only broad head arrow tips are banned in Britain, everything else in this video is quite legal.
GollyCat 1 year ago
@GollyCat Depressing, isn't it :/ I'd love a broadhead.
666satanification666 1 year ago
@GollyCat Why broad heads? Besides, imortal was only making a point, the UK is a nanny state, it wishes to seperate the people from anything even distantly related to violence.. in which it fails miserably
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
@Pawnbroker00 Unfortunately bow hunting in the UK was outlawed many years ago and broadhead arrow tips were restricted as a result (by virtue of the fact they are near essential for clean(ish) dispatch of prey). Expanding upon my previous comment, it is actually the use of broadheads for anything other than 'display purposes' that is banned. However, i've noticed they've become more available lately ;) ...and yes i agree, the UK certainly is a nanny state!
GollyCat 1 year ago
@GollyCat I know.. its rubbish because theres still a lot of these outlawed things floating around on the black market. Someone i know, had a dodgy old pre-ban switchknife which bounced up in his pocket and stabbed his thigh lol
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
Thank you for posting
cqc75 1 year ago 14