Here's a little and lesser known fact about mid-evil battle techniques. The English incorporated a move in the field (primarily against the French) known as the "School boy" in which the act of kneeling behind someone while someone else pushes them over would render the heavily armored soldier helpless to ruthless and repeated tea-bagging styles by various Englishmen. Eventually the incapacitated Frenchman would be relieved of their misery by a 2,000 lb. battle horse stepping on their head.
A two handed sword weights no more than 7 or 8 lbs! A onehanded no more than 2,5 lbs! Neverthe less it's hard to fight even for minutes, because of armor and fighting. The technique the guy demonstrates is a Halfsword-Technique. A good way to put more strength and control in a stab
@Plone3000 yep, they were not razor sharp. used properly they do not have to be. Methinks you are the dumb ass not realising the guy doing the demo knows how to use the weapon
@machendave Just the fact that you are useing "Methinks" leads me to believe you are the true dumb ass. By the way the real one were sharp. The guy doing the demo is not a knight, he does not how they used to fight, he is just going off of theory. My theory is if it has a handle, put your hands on the fucking handle, duh. So stfu.
@Plone3000 actually he is correct. in medieval ages they would grab the blade, that was part of the fighting style. it's not a katana that's designed to be razor sharp, longswords were sharpened but not to a razor edge. also keep in mind when grabing the blade a knight would be wearing gauntlets designed to protect the hands.
@machendave Just the fact that you are useing "Methinks" leads me to believe you are the true dumb ass. By the way the real ones were sharp. The guy doing the demo is not a knight, he does not how they used to fight, he is just going off of theory. My theory is if it has a handle, put your hands on the fucking handle, duh. So stfu.
@adventussaxonum lol it just seems hard to be able to shoot at someone than run and close the distance with your dagger out to stab them before they get back up.
@RalphyGreene - well, that's how many armoured knights were killed in major battles by English archers. Having an arrow from a 140lb draw weight bow smack you in the visor would put you down quite easily. It's going to take a while to gather your senses, try and manoeuvre yourself out of the mud, find your sword, maybe get hit again, push another body off you, and....oh, there's a lightly equipped, very heavily muscled archer with a knife or maul on top of you.
@adventussaxonum I think its more like many knights were killed but not exactly all by longbows I always read longbows arrows mostly just injured or tired out the knights they also stopped calvary charges like at crecy. Still you need to remember most of the army was not comprised by knights but foot soldiers, geonose crossbowmen longbowmen did super heavy casualties against these people for example at battle of crecy. also i dont think archers would run and close distance after shots.
@RalphyGreene - " i dont think archers would run and close distance after shots."
Which is exactly what they did at Agincourt, for example. They killed far more knights and men-at-arms by use of daggers and axes/mauls than they did with arrows. You're right that the knights were injured and tired out, which is why the archers found it easy to dispatch them!
@adventussaxonum I dont think they ran and closed the gap at agincourt they waited for the knights to arrive than they retreated/while firing till they ran out of arrows than they fought them hand to hand. *taken from wikipedia*.
@RalphyGreene - the English archers dropped their bows and joined the mêlée. Acccording to wiki "When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud)"
They carried on shooting whilst they still had arrows because they were still doing damage. They still had to close the gap on their targets in order to engage them.
@adventussaxonum of course to engage anyone who is further away than 1 ft you need to close the gap you were trying to say they shot their bows and dropped them than attacked them when like it says on wiki the part YOU left out the knights pushed the line back and they retreated till they ran out of arrows than joined the melee.
@RalphyGreene - the knights pushed the English line back gradually - they did not retreat. This central battle line consisted mainly of men at arms. Most of the archers were on the flanks and avoided by the French, who shied away from the arrows and were hampered by the stakes,(which helped create even more funnelling and overcrowding ). When the line held, and the arrows ran low, the archers attacked(and it was a lot more than 1ft they had to cover)
@adventussaxonum Who said they retreated? I did not say that im just saying they pushed the line back until they ran out of arrows than they went melee because they had to and by that time the knights were within fighting range. The original concept of this conversation was someone saying knocking down a knight with a arrow shot and jumping ontop of him and killing him that way. I was saying I dont think it happened like that considering most people didnt shoot 1 shot and charge a knight.
@RalphyGreene - "Who said they retreated?" you did, in your previous comment!
"the knights pushed the line back and they retreated till they ran out of arrows than joined the melee."
Sorry if I misinterpreted the word "retreated"
BTW what is "fighting range"? 2 feet? 20 feet? 30 yards?...... I'm not claiming anyone ran 400m to close action, but you seem to be implying that the archers only fought hand to hand because they were being overrun, rather than attacking.
I think you didnt read the first comments that were posted you were so worried about trying to educate someone over the internet you didnt even know what the conversation was about.
@adventussaxonum lol it just seems hard to be able to shoot at someone than run and close the distance with your dagger out to stab them before they get back up.
Stab him in the armpit after letting him run in all the heavy armor and let him wield the 4-7 pound sword of his. When he going for the over head hack you side step and run him through the armpit hes finished.
@EvilDarkJackel That depends on the type of sword; some swords did weight a fair bit more than 5lbs, but those are also really huge swords. Most single-handed and hand-and-half swords were about 2-4lbs like you said.
I know this was said a few times, but yes a sword weighs 3-5 lbs, many other things like vambrace, rerebrace, helm and things have a few lbs on them but are generally unnotcble since they are evenly distributed on your body. Its not like carrying a 80 lb backpack. ;) the heiviest item would be chainmail shirt, covering arms and droping below the waits being about 40 or so lbs. once again, you train in it, and it is evenly disributed over the body.
@EvilDarkJackel no they dont you idiot. todays rifles dont weigh shit compared to swords back then. are you even serious about the kevlar? Kevlar has a metal plate sown into the ribs part of the vest. Medieval chest armor itself is a big piece of metal wich weighs WAY WAY WAY more than a piece of kevlar, plus the limb armor and the helmet. And that is plate mail. Before that there was full plate armor in that armor you couldnt even walk. leave if you dont know shit about the topic
@EvilDarkJackel actualy a sword held by two hands is heavy except for the short sword and long sword and broad sword and an avreage morden soldiers carries 90 pounds an average knight had armor weighing 60 pounds but they had realy good agilty they did back flips and etc
A good fighting dagger can stabb the fighter through the chainmail... because its very thin and only for stabbing, not cutting. But the knight is already a bit confusing: the helmet is a Hundsgugel. The Hundsgugel is a late Medieval Helmet for guys on horses, not on foot... The chainmail without plate armor is a early medieval thing... and the techniques are for Longswords, not for 1Hand Swords...
guys believe it or not people back then well the average man was about 5 foot and unhealthy do to there coditions the only other real differece is that they wernt as spoilt rotten and whiny as most today they where born and raised workers if they had something like a common cold they would most likely die unlike today when thats nothing point is if we all whernt such little girls we could be bettter and more healthy fighters than even them
imagine the strength these guys had back in the days, just try holding a real 2 hand sword, fucking heavy, and all that metal on you, fighting in a thousand man battle for a couple hours, crazy.............
@mtlchronix A real two hand sword never weight more than 6-8 lbs, and that´s already a very heavy weapon. Warriors needed light swords that could be used with quick movements. Also, a single man did not fought against so many enemies in a single battle. Do not trust Hollywood, please... People back in these days were like people nowadays, but smaller and with a poorer diet. They weren´t stronger, they just weren´t as whiny as people´s today.
It's the armor that's the killer. The swords didn't weigh very much. Even the big Zwiehanders didn't weigh nore than 7 or 8 pounds. The armor though, yeah, it sucks. 40 pounds of maille, 100+pounds of plate, arming coat, yeah, it sucks...
Meh. Modern infantryman carry more in gear than they did in armor and weapons. And who knows how much of that is useless superfluous crap?
A longsword wouldn't be much more than 4 pounds on the outside. Greatswords ranged from 5 to 8 pounds. Not all that heavy if you are at all athletic, which you were going to be if you were raised to do it.
@dhx84 yes they carry alot of gear, only when they are 1st being deployed , once the base is set up and you go on patro/convoy assist etc....l you dont carry your whole "sleeping bag n shit" , aiming and pressing the trigger on a firearm take less energy than manipulating a sword
I'm not exactly an expert on these matters, but carbon steel is hardly a new invention even back then. And swords were made to have good balance. These aren't prybars we're talking about here.
Of course craftsmanship always varies depending on wealth and class. Despite the reputation of the "katana" as always superlatively well-crafted, even they had inferior versions.
The truly good swords were actually made of *composite* steels. And such swords were extremely valuable.
@dhx84 well said. the only reason the katana evolved as it did was coz it had too as tamohagane steel is quite inferior and brittle until it is processed so through trial and error over many yrs it got perfected. mow vikingr and saxon blades were exquisite with their pattern welding techniques, as was indian and arabic whoot steel blades, all , like today's tech (carbon fiber for e.g.), using composite materiel's to obtain lightness and strength. it made sense to make them light and strong.
@mtlchronix actually its not true, proper good quality swords were strong & light, after all it was the military high tech of the time & they have 2000 yrs to perfect them. i have done many forms of swordplay martial arts from fiore de liberi, to fechtbauch sveihander to vikingr sveordr & shield to cossack shashka to kendo & have never come across a heavy sword- well at least one that is real & not a fake decorative wall hanger. think about it, if u were @ war all day it would need to be light.
@thx1103n also the armor whilst heavy is not as bad to wear as u might think, as it is a load spread across the body it balances out well. also they had many yrs to perfect this so it got stronger with paneling techniques like fluting thinner metal 4 strength such as Milanese armor, my full harness only weighs 25kg. not too bad at all. now jousting armor on the other hand, that was heavy as they wore many specialised plated to absorb the high inertia impact, like a cars crumple zone cont'd.....
@thx1103n in fact they wore plates on top of plates with springs in between them so when hit they would fly off looking spectacular to the crowd and reducing energy transference. this is where the myth of not being able to move in armor comes from. as their armor was specially made for tilting they were bolted into their armor as lances were heavy a couching techniques were needed to handle them thus once knocked off they couldn't get back up. cont'd ....
@thx1103n but true combat armor was both relatively light considering the materials used and extremely articulated and manipulable and articulated. i can actually do combat rolls in my 15th century styles scandinavian armor and as u can see in this vid the guy runs in it with relative ease. for a good example of top notch armor look at anything from maximillian era germany & italian milanese armor and king henry the 8th personal harness. you will be surprised at how well it was made. cont'd..
@thx1103n like modern military equipment these days, this was the absolute pinnacle of warfare tech of its time and mass amounts of R&D went into perfecting this tech to make it both functional, easy as possible to use and easy as possible to either wield and carry. that being said sure theres a bit of weight to carry but look at it this way, when i was in the army i used to carry 50kg packs on deployment and this is way more heavier than armor, lol. hope i didnt bore u too much lol. :)
@mtlchronix actually well made longswords feel light due to how well they may be balanced. i do this and study old fight manuscripts and all the longswords ive handled are balanced well and feel light.
@mtlchronix It really is and you wouldn;t fight for hours, just minutes, pretty decent video, but then again he;s in chainmail and full faced plate helm, just stab him in the chest with the broad sword, and yes, i know what i'm talking about i've been fighting live stehel for awhile now, but yeah two handers can be heavy, but hell no i'd never charge into anything with a two hander unless it was a claymore!, id stick with shield/axe or shield/sword
@mtlchronix they usually fought in bursts, though, so the armies would clash and exchange steel for a short time and pull back, fighting for hours on end would kill the men from sheer heat stroke.
@mtlchronix 2 hand swords do not weigh so much, just 2 kilo(katana 1.5 kilo) .. The equipment would also weigh only 15 to 30 kilos(samurai armour weigh the same)
@mtlchronix It is quite a common misconception that two-handed european swords were heavy, but in fact they seldom weighed more than 1.5 kilos. Mail is indeed quite heavy to fight in since the weight is often awkwardly distributed. Full plate on the other hand were fastened with a multitude of straps to distribute the weight as evenly as possible. One can easily do cartwheels or even swim in properly fastened plate.
@ikarosrising1 Very true, and I'm glad someone pointed that out. It depends on the maille/ chainmail being used... Historically, the rings were flattened and rivetted and actually quite light. Modern mail shirts have a tendency to be quite heavy in comparison.
Have a look at Cap-a-Pie Maille (just google the guy) to see what I'm talking about.
@mtlchronix They didn't sit an an office all fucking day like we do now. Start working out a bit and training with a sword in a couple of years you'll be fine.
@mtlchronix - Mate some guys including me still do that today, in the UK we have re-enactments at places like Tewkesbury where over 2000 guys wearing all the proper armour that they would have worn back then, and use tactics, weapons and everything that would have happened back then.
Battle of Tewkesbury 1471, 2000 guys in plate armour, fight the battle exactly how it was fought. We wear all that stuff and fight for like 2 hours strait! Watch Battle of Tewkesbury on here
@frontiergoat not a full suit, that is why knights had horses, and the other army tried to take out the horses and the knights are almost frozen in that spot
@reubyjay25 only... after one day of walking around in such a suit... well... you're completely f*cked up :P It's quite exhausting really :) not to mention: hot
@reubyjay25 I have worn armor you can run short distances, however a knight is a human tank not meant for speed unless on a horse. The knight is not the only one in armor what of the man-at-arms;(men in armor without being knighted)
@frontiergoat I think knights usually had better armour than a man-at-arms due to their stations solely due to the fact that they would probably be able to afford good plate armour.
Yep its what they do at West Point Study War, And if they studying the medieval era, well that makes sense because our enemy has its mindset in the dark ages . Know the enemy better that he knows itself, easier to kill him that way.
It is important for officers to develop the ability to analyze unusual situations and find solutions, so looking at how officers in the past solved military problems when the situation was very different from today can provide useful information.
@therasppberry fuck you just because i coudent spell century at the time that doesnt mean that im an idiot. it just prooves that your are an ass hole that thinks hes cool cus he is a walking dictionary
I'd love to see a revamped modern day steel armor suit, like the old knights. See how much it would take to make him a tank, then add in some kevlar. Would be an awesome project.
Firing a cannon point blank in the face I find is a very effective way of dealing with suited up knights. The difficult part is luring him too the cannon.
I get fed up with people saying that armor like that is invincible without specially designed weapons. They think that the knight was 100% covered like there's no segment weak points or anything. Of course at that point one wouldn't be able to move.
@WritingFighter To reach those segment weak points you will need a specially designed weapon.
There ar no true gaps between the plates of european plate armour. The only places in the armor devoid of plates are the inner surfaces of the elbow joints, the armpits, and the pelvic area, these however are covered with chainmail and heavy padded clothing (the heavy padded clothing extends to below all the armor, and has segments of chainmail sewn into it in the armor's weak points).
@stridingshadow If there were no gaps, then the wearer wouldn't be able to move or see: that suggests there is a 100% solid set of metal completely encasing the user. That would also be an impossibility because it would mean it was impossible for him to get in or out of the armor. The "gaps" aren't big, but they aren't impenetrable. I'm talking about people who suggest that without gunpowder or a halberd there is 0% chance of wounding a knight at all period. A rapier/dagger works.
@WritingFighter Have you ever seen the scales on a fish or reptile? There are no gaps between them (the scales cover one another just like roof tiles do), and even though there is an amount of motion between the plates, there are no gaps in well made and designed plate armor. So there were quite few places in the armor without any plate on them (as I mentionned: the armpits, and the inguinal area) and you could hope to stab them with a dagger (or whatever) but it was hardly probable in combat.
@stridingshadow The biggest gap though, if one can manage to reach it, are the hamstrings, right behind the thighs. Weaknesses double on the back of the knight.
@WritingFighter Piercing a plate of armor without a projectile weapon or a pike (making profit of the horses' speed) is nearly impossible. Cutting through chainmail with anything short of a longsword (or a polearm, or aa projectile weapon) is as hard. So if you're armed with something not truly designed for anti-armor purposes, you will have to try and hit very few weak spots with little chance of success, even if should land a hit.
you can cut all your fingers with your own sword also... :/
StudioOfDah 2 weeks ago
cool demonstration!
PaladinHludwig 2 weeks ago
First, get wrist control....
Wild1990Child 2 weeks ago
with a gun
l3054 3 weeks ago
Or grap your gun, aim and fire xD
Blommedreng 3 weeks ago
Nerdwars.
Mangina9000 1 month ago
a big lump of steel on the end of a stick works well, like a poleaxe, mace or flail.
titytit 1 month ago
TAZER!
nokineeded 1 month ago
shoot an arrow into his knee
cutting13strings 1 month ago
Blunt force is a good counter against armor.
jerz211 1 month ago
arrow to the knee obviously
awesomeguy45 1 month ago
Call Zeus for Lighting damage:)
ismolaitelaVevo 1 month ago
Here's a little and lesser known fact about mid-evil battle techniques. The English incorporated a move in the field (primarily against the French) known as the "School boy" in which the act of kneeling behind someone while someone else pushes them over would render the heavily armored soldier helpless to ruthless and repeated tea-bagging styles by various Englishmen. Eventually the incapacitated Frenchman would be relieved of their misery by a 2,000 lb. battle horse stepping on their head.
raven8699 2 months ago
Get a mace or short-hafted warhammer instead of a sword!
Tranxhead 2 months ago
"Or.. if one has a dagger"
Last words before things didn't go as planned.
Halofreakanoid 2 months ago
how about shooting them...you know?? with guns of the modern???
TrolololGundam 2 months ago
You can be as armored as a bucket but you can't kill a Mongol. They'll just shoot you from 100 yards.
aa3gunner 3 months ago
fireball ?
elasolezito 3 months ago
If you got borught back in time,which is impossible, why not bring a gun?
djlocman3 3 months ago
Good to know, in case I get robbed by a guy in medieval armor, and I happen to carry a sword at the time.
JDE90 3 months ago
A two handed sword weights no more than 7 or 8 lbs! A onehanded no more than 2,5 lbs! Neverthe less it's hard to fight even for minutes, because of armor and fighting. The technique the guy demonstrates is a Halfsword-Technique. A good way to put more strength and control in a stab
dragosani196 3 months ago
Thats a great idea just hold the sword by the blade, dumb ass.
Plone3000 3 months ago
@Plone3000 yep, they were not razor sharp. used properly they do not have to be. Methinks you are the dumb ass not realising the guy doing the demo knows how to use the weapon
machendave 3 months ago
@machendave Just the fact that you are useing "Methinks" leads me to believe you are the true dumb ass. By the way the real one were sharp. The guy doing the demo is not a knight, he does not how they used to fight, he is just going off of theory. My theory is if it has a handle, put your hands on the fucking handle, duh. So stfu.
Plone3000 2 months ago
@Plone3000 actually he is correct. in medieval ages they would grab the blade, that was part of the fighting style. it's not a katana that's designed to be razor sharp, longswords were sharpened but not to a razor edge. also keep in mind when grabing the blade a knight would be wearing gauntlets designed to protect the hands.
yatsuketa 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@machendave Just the fact that you are useing "Methinks" leads me to believe you are the true dumb ass. By the way the real ones were sharp. The guy doing the demo is not a knight, he does not how they used to fight, he is just going off of theory. My theory is if it has a handle, put your hands on the fucking handle, duh. So stfu.
Plone3000 2 months ago
Hmmm.. come to our portal. We interest in it
middleagestoday. com
middleagestoday 3 months ago
....push him into a lake
TheBrradsullivan 3 months ago 44
@TheBrradsullivan what if he floats?
mrrossn 2 months ago
@mrrossn ..buoyant steel?!....well then yur fucked! lol
TheBrradsullivan 2 months ago
@TheBrradsullivan it was a bit for the mounty python the holy grail, with the witch.
mrrossn 2 months ago
@mrrossn oooh hahah, "she turned me into a newt!" ......"well i got better" lol
TheBrradsullivan 2 months ago
GREAT!! Now I know how to defend myself when Europe invades America.
skullythebloger 3 months ago
Try shooting him
spook9614 4 months ago
morons
SilenCr 4 months ago
this video is about 1000 years too late....
JackSlicerProduction 4 months ago
Knock him off his feet with a longbow arrow, and stick a dagger in his visor. Or hit him with a big hammer. Both worked.
adventussaxonum 4 months ago
@adventussaxonum why would somebody fall to the ground in full armor if he got hit by a english longbow? lol
RalphyGreene 4 months ago
@RalphyGreene - ha,ha! not the actual bow,granted, but the arrow projected by it!
adventussaxonum 4 months ago
@adventussaxonum lol it just seems hard to be able to shoot at someone than run and close the distance with your dagger out to stab them before they get back up.
RalphyGreene 4 months ago
@RalphyGreene - well, that's how many armoured knights were killed in major battles by English archers. Having an arrow from a 140lb draw weight bow smack you in the visor would put you down quite easily. It's going to take a while to gather your senses, try and manoeuvre yourself out of the mud, find your sword, maybe get hit again, push another body off you, and....oh, there's a lightly equipped, very heavily muscled archer with a knife or maul on top of you.
adventussaxonum 4 months ago
@adventussaxonum I think its more like many knights were killed but not exactly all by longbows I always read longbows arrows mostly just injured or tired out the knights they also stopped calvary charges like at crecy. Still you need to remember most of the army was not comprised by knights but foot soldiers, geonose crossbowmen longbowmen did super heavy casualties against these people for example at battle of crecy. also i dont think archers would run and close distance after shots.
RalphyGreene 4 months ago
@RalphyGreene - " i dont think archers would run and close distance after shots."
Which is exactly what they did at Agincourt, for example. They killed far more knights and men-at-arms by use of daggers and axes/mauls than they did with arrows. You're right that the knights were injured and tired out, which is why the archers found it easy to dispatch them!
adventussaxonum 4 months ago
@adventussaxonum I dont think they ran and closed the gap at agincourt they waited for the knights to arrive than they retreated/while firing till they ran out of arrows than they fought them hand to hand. *taken from wikipedia*.
RalphyGreene 4 months ago
@RalphyGreene - the English archers dropped their bows and joined the mêlée. Acccording to wiki "When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud)"
They carried on shooting whilst they still had arrows because they were still doing damage. They still had to close the gap on their targets in order to engage them.
adventussaxonum 3 months ago
@adventussaxonum of course to engage anyone who is further away than 1 ft you need to close the gap you were trying to say they shot their bows and dropped them than attacked them when like it says on wiki the part YOU left out the knights pushed the line back and they retreated till they ran out of arrows than joined the melee.
RalphyGreene 3 months ago
@RalphyGreene - the knights pushed the English line back gradually - they did not retreat. This central battle line consisted mainly of men at arms. Most of the archers were on the flanks and avoided by the French, who shied away from the arrows and were hampered by the stakes,(which helped create even more funnelling and overcrowding ). When the line held, and the arrows ran low, the archers attacked(and it was a lot more than 1ft they had to cover)
adventussaxonum 3 months ago
@adventussaxonum Who said they retreated? I did not say that im just saying they pushed the line back until they ran out of arrows than they went melee because they had to and by that time the knights were within fighting range. The original concept of this conversation was someone saying knocking down a knight with a arrow shot and jumping ontop of him and killing him that way. I was saying I dont think it happened like that considering most people didnt shoot 1 shot and charge a knight.
RalphyGreene 3 months ago
@RalphyGreene - "Who said they retreated?" you did, in your previous comment!
"the knights pushed the line back and they retreated till they ran out of arrows than joined the melee."
Sorry if I misinterpreted the word "retreated"
BTW what is "fighting range"? 2 feet? 20 feet? 30 yards?...... I'm not claiming anyone ran 400m to close action, but you seem to be implying that the archers only fought hand to hand because they were being overrun, rather than attacking.
adventussaxonum 3 months ago
I think you didnt read the first comments that were posted you were so worried about trying to educate someone over the internet you didnt even know what the conversation was about.
RalphyGreene 3 months ago
@RalphyGreene - the first comments were "Hi Ken" and someone recommending smacking him in the head with a hammer (with which I concur).
Most of the posts were concerned with how to kill a guy in armour- was my comment not related to this theme?
I merely made my own comment. Sorry if you don't agree. I expect I'll get over it!
adventussaxonum 3 months ago
@adventussaxonum lol it just seems hard to be able to shoot at someone than run and close the distance with your dagger out to stab them before they get back up.
RalphyGreene 4 months ago
two words, GUN
Avatar230594 4 months ago
...Or you could shoot him with 50cal sniper rifle. Theres several variations.
blinkkeri1 4 months ago
Stab him in the armpit after letting him run in all the heavy armor and let him wield the 4-7 pound sword of his. When he going for the over head hack you side step and run him through the armpit hes finished.
DaveTheSamurai 4 months ago
Were did he get tht chain mail jacket like thing???
kj8022 5 months ago
Well, he is wearing chain mail, which iirc that kind of armor has a negative AC penalty for PIERCING attacks.
Agent1W 5 months ago
@EvilDarkJackel That depends on the type of sword; some swords did weight a fair bit more than 5lbs, but those are also really huge swords. Most single-handed and hand-and-half swords were about 2-4lbs like you said.
MGlBlaze 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know this was said a few times, but yes a sword weighs 3-5 lbs, many other things like vambrace, rerebrace, helm and things have a few lbs on them but are generally unnotcble since they are evenly distributed on your body. Its not like carrying a 80 lb backpack. ;) the heiviest item would be chainmail shirt, covering arms and droping below the waits being about 40 or so lbs. once again, you train in it, and it is evenly disributed over the body.
aevum132003 5 months ago
@EvilDarkJackel no they dont you idiot. todays rifles dont weigh shit compared to swords back then. are you even serious about the kevlar? Kevlar has a metal plate sown into the ribs part of the vest. Medieval chest armor itself is a big piece of metal wich weighs WAY WAY WAY more than a piece of kevlar, plus the limb armor and the helmet. And that is plate mail. Before that there was full plate armor in that armor you couldnt even walk. leave if you dont know shit about the topic
masenz 5 months ago
Amazing! Come visit our Brave Teddy Bear, Ryan, as he Strives to Become a Knight at Sarasota's Medieval Fair in Sarasota, Florida, U.S.A.
See: ryanlifeofryan(dot)com Arise!- Sir Ryan of Bear Haven! (Nov., 201
ryanlifeofryan 5 months ago
@EvilDarkJackel actualy a sword held by two hands is heavy except for the short sword and long sword and broad sword and an avreage morden soldiers carries 90 pounds an average knight had armor weighing 60 pounds but they had realy good agilty they did back flips and etc
eliteswordsman1 5 months ago
u kill a guy in metal armor with a warhammer thats one way
eliteswordsman1 5 months ago
A 50 caliber sniper rifle shooting jacketed armor piercing rounds would probably do the best at killing a guy in medieval armor!
ExposeChosunNinja 5 months ago
I second @idontfkinknow1234 with the Warhammer suggestion, alternately cut off his lines of supply until his army starves.
casusbelli15 5 months ago
or u could throw a LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT!
DAlax17 5 months ago
@DAlax17 looooool
Pooternackle5 5 months ago
or you can just shoot him with a shotgun.
modern tech wins.
rogerpenna 5 months ago
@rogerpenna Well, shoot him with a rifle. That might actually stand up against buckshot.
DireSloth 5 months ago
A good fighting dagger can stabb the fighter through the chainmail... because its very thin and only for stabbing, not cutting. But the knight is already a bit confusing: the helmet is a Hundsgugel. The Hundsgugel is a late Medieval Helmet for guys on horses, not on foot... The chainmail without plate armor is a early medieval thing... and the techniques are for Longswords, not for 1Hand Swords...
MercTW 6 months ago
I wanna know what to do with the dagger :/
xXDDXx999 6 months ago
Shoot motherfucker
KafelObrotowy 6 months ago
"stab him in the face"
*goes right into his eye slots*
blendder35 6 months ago
a full 2 hand sword made of steel 8 pounds? way more than this
mtlchronix 6 months ago
@mtlchronix
I shit you not.
dhx84 6 months ago
NOOOO I will never knows the rest of the story because the video ends with "orrrr, if one has a doubt...."
How am i supposed to beat those armored knights now?
Dan0622 6 months ago
guys believe it or not people back then well the average man was about 5 foot and unhealthy do to there coditions the only other real differece is that they wernt as spoilt rotten and whiny as most today they where born and raised workers if they had something like a common cold they would most likely die unlike today when thats nothing point is if we all whernt such little girls we could be bettter and more healthy fighters than even them
painlessandstainles1 6 months ago
west point cadets???? they accept fattys like the red shirt one???? LOL what kind of idiots academy must be?
Panz82 6 months ago
Mortschläg? Usually it's just called a "murder stroke".
bert19burt 6 months ago
STRUCK BY LIGHTNING!!!!!
nicothegreat795 7 months ago 33
How do you kill a man in armor?
You shoot him.
Problem solved..
heronoki 7 months ago
@heronoki
HAHAHA
That is not funny.
axium403 6 months ago
Tasers work well too! :O
u12kno 7 months ago
imagine the strength these guys had back in the days, just try holding a real 2 hand sword, fucking heavy, and all that metal on you, fighting in a thousand man battle for a couple hours, crazy.............
mtlchronix 7 months ago 39
@mtlchronix you may check some vids from this fest battleofthenations
there some rly interesting fights
terie1e 7 months ago
@mtlchronix the swords are around 2-4 lbs
lobeking 6 months ago
@lobeking you dream
Panz82 6 months ago
@mtlchronix A real two hand sword never weight more than 6-8 lbs, and that´s already a very heavy weapon. Warriors needed light swords that could be used with quick movements. Also, a single man did not fought against so many enemies in a single battle. Do not trust Hollywood, please... People back in these days were like people nowadays, but smaller and with a poorer diet. They weren´t stronger, they just weren´t as whiny as people´s today.
Lleldrar 6 months ago
@Lleldrar I second your comment.
Valholm 6 months ago
@mtlchronix
It's the armor that's the killer. The swords didn't weigh very much. Even the big Zwiehanders didn't weigh nore than 7 or 8 pounds. The armor though, yeah, it sucks. 40 pounds of maille, 100+pounds of plate, arming coat, yeah, it sucks...
RomanovBuck 6 months ago 2
@mtlchronix
Meh. Modern infantryman carry more in gear than they did in armor and weapons. And who knows how much of that is useless superfluous crap?
A longsword wouldn't be much more than 4 pounds on the outside. Greatswords ranged from 5 to 8 pounds. Not all that heavy if you are at all athletic, which you were going to be if you were raised to do it.
dhx84 6 months ago
@dhx84 yes they carry alot of gear, only when they are 1st being deployed , once the base is set up and you go on patro/convoy assist etc....l you dont carry your whole "sleeping bag n shit" , aiming and pressing the trigger on a firearm take less energy than manipulating a sword
mtlchronix 6 months ago
@mtlchronix not to mention infantry being assisted by hmmvs ,apc's, tranport heli, etc......
mtlchronix 6 months ago
@mtlchronix
Okay, I'll grant you that.
dhx84 6 months ago
Comment removed
mtlchronix 6 months ago
but thanks for the sword info, i thought sword back then where heavier due to different composition of the "metal" used ?
mtlchronix 6 months ago
@mtlchronix
I'm not exactly an expert on these matters, but carbon steel is hardly a new invention even back then. And swords were made to have good balance. These aren't prybars we're talking about here.
Of course craftsmanship always varies depending on wealth and class. Despite the reputation of the "katana" as always superlatively well-crafted, even they had inferior versions.
The truly good swords were actually made of *composite* steels. And such swords were extremely valuable.
dhx84 6 months ago
Comment removed
thx1103n 6 months ago
@dhx84 well said. the only reason the katana evolved as it did was coz it had too as tamohagane steel is quite inferior and brittle until it is processed so through trial and error over many yrs it got perfected. mow vikingr and saxon blades were exquisite with their pattern welding techniques, as was indian and arabic whoot steel blades, all , like today's tech (carbon fiber for e.g.), using composite materiel's to obtain lightness and strength. it made sense to make them light and strong.
thx1103n 6 months ago
@mtlchronix actually its not true, proper good quality swords were strong & light, after all it was the military high tech of the time & they have 2000 yrs to perfect them. i have done many forms of swordplay martial arts from fiore de liberi, to fechtbauch sveihander to vikingr sveordr & shield to cossack shashka to kendo & have never come across a heavy sword- well at least one that is real & not a fake decorative wall hanger. think about it, if u were @ war all day it would need to be light.
thx1103n 6 months ago
@thx1103n also the armor whilst heavy is not as bad to wear as u might think, as it is a load spread across the body it balances out well. also they had many yrs to perfect this so it got stronger with paneling techniques like fluting thinner metal 4 strength such as Milanese armor, my full harness only weighs 25kg. not too bad at all. now jousting armor on the other hand, that was heavy as they wore many specialised plated to absorb the high inertia impact, like a cars crumple zone cont'd.....
thx1103n 6 months ago
@thx1103n in fact they wore plates on top of plates with springs in between them so when hit they would fly off looking spectacular to the crowd and reducing energy transference. this is where the myth of not being able to move in armor comes from. as their armor was specially made for tilting they were bolted into their armor as lances were heavy a couching techniques were needed to handle them thus once knocked off they couldn't get back up. cont'd ....
thx1103n 6 months ago
@thx1103n but true combat armor was both relatively light considering the materials used and extremely articulated and manipulable and articulated. i can actually do combat rolls in my 15th century styles scandinavian armor and as u can see in this vid the guy runs in it with relative ease. for a good example of top notch armor look at anything from maximillian era germany & italian milanese armor and king henry the 8th personal harness. you will be surprised at how well it was made. cont'd..
thx1103n 6 months ago
@thx1103n like modern military equipment these days, this was the absolute pinnacle of warfare tech of its time and mass amounts of R&D went into perfecting this tech to make it both functional, easy as possible to use and easy as possible to either wield and carry. that being said sure theres a bit of weight to carry but look at it this way, when i was in the army i used to carry 50kg packs on deployment and this is way more heavier than armor, lol. hope i didnt bore u too much lol. :)
thx1103n 6 months ago
@mtlchronix actually well made longswords feel light due to how well they may be balanced. i do this and study old fight manuscripts and all the longswords ive handled are balanced well and feel light.
mouthforwar17 5 months ago
@mtlchronix A full metal armor is 69 pounds i think its not that heavy plus the sword probally 80 pounds total
Lightnazor 5 months ago
@mtlchronix It really is and you wouldn;t fight for hours, just minutes, pretty decent video, but then again he;s in chainmail and full faced plate helm, just stab him in the chest with the broad sword, and yes, i know what i'm talking about i've been fighting live stehel for awhile now, but yeah two handers can be heavy, but hell no i'd never charge into anything with a two hander unless it was a claymore!, id stick with shield/axe or shield/sword
adamfranco55 5 months ago
@mtlchronix they usually fought in bursts, though, so the armies would clash and exchange steel for a short time and pull back, fighting for hours on end would kill the men from sheer heat stroke.
Thrawn6211 4 months ago
@mtlchronix 2 hand swords do not weigh so much, just 2 kilo(katana 1.5 kilo) .. The equipment would also weigh only 15 to 30 kilos(samurai armour weigh the same)
TheLoki7281 4 months ago
@mtlchronix It is quite a common misconception that two-handed european swords were heavy, but in fact they seldom weighed more than 1.5 kilos. Mail is indeed quite heavy to fight in since the weight is often awkwardly distributed. Full plate on the other hand were fastened with a multitude of straps to distribute the weight as evenly as possible. One can easily do cartwheels or even swim in properly fastened plate.
ikarosrising1 4 months ago 21
@ikarosrising1 Very true, and I'm glad someone pointed that out. It depends on the maille/ chainmail being used... Historically, the rings were flattened and rivetted and actually quite light. Modern mail shirts have a tendency to be quite heavy in comparison.
Have a look at Cap-a-Pie Maille (just google the guy) to see what I'm talking about.
samprastherabbit 1 month ago
@ikarosrising1 : Even maille is distributed finely if you have a simple belt.
Halofreakanoid 1 month ago
@ikarosrising1 he's using a hand and a half actually
Warbmeister 1 month ago
@mtlchronix the armour by itself weighed 30kg!!! i think that is 15 pounds?
ZeejayOriginals 3 months ago
@mtlchronix They didn't sit an an office all fucking day like we do now. Start working out a bit and training with a sword in a couple of years you'll be fine.
LazyManTips 3 months ago
@mtlchronix - Mate some guys including me still do that today, in the UK we have re-enactments at places like Tewkesbury where over 2000 guys wearing all the proper armour that they would have worn back then, and use tactics, weapons and everything that would have happened back then.
Battle of Tewkesbury 1471, 2000 guys in plate armour, fight the battle exactly how it was fought. We wear all that stuff and fight for like 2 hours strait! Watch Battle of Tewkesbury on here
jsarkar339 3 months ago
if that sword was real i bet he wouldnt be able to do half those things..... unless he doesn't mind losing a few fingers haha
4rcticfox 7 months ago
Read Nietzsche to him until he commits suicide.
dewfall56 7 months ago
FAIL you cant run in real armor
reubyjay25 7 months ago
@reubyjay25 lol yes you can
frontiergoat 7 months ago
@frontiergoat not a full suit, that is why knights had horses, and the other army tried to take out the horses and the knights are almost frozen in that spot
reubyjay25 7 months ago
@reubyjay25 only... after one day of walking around in such a suit... well... you're completely f*cked up :P It's quite exhausting really :) not to mention: hot
Shootandrun4fun 7 months ago
@reubyjay25 I have worn armor you can run short distances, however a knight is a human tank not meant for speed unless on a horse. The knight is not the only one in armor what of the man-at-arms;(men in armor without being knighted)
frontiergoat 7 months ago
@frontiergoat I think knights usually had better armour than a man-at-arms due to their stations solely due to the fact that they would probably be able to afford good plate armour.
x2Ice2x 7 months ago
@reubyjay25 hahaha I've seen people doing push-ups with more armour on... plate as well as chainmail... so... yeah... you can run in armor
Shootandrun4fun 7 months ago
until I felt cold when I saw that the etching se baseball in not asking piercing blows it's too dangerous!
sirCRUSADER666 7 months ago
just back up slowly and let him run himself into exhaustion...
... or call in an airstrike
wickedpissa25 7 months ago
I'd run him over with my SUV.
killarse 7 months ago 2
or you can just jump on the armored person with a dagger and take off their helmet and stab them <.<
Xennia2493 8 months ago
mord schlag :D im german
Schatzkiste 8 months ago
forever alone
SupersawLead 8 months ago
Yep its what they do at West Point Study War, And if they studying the medieval era, well that makes sense because our enemy has its mindset in the dark ages . Know the enemy better that he knows itself, easier to kill him that way.
BH206L3 8 months ago
How to kill a guy in medieval armor:
Step 1) Gun
Step 2) Victory
ZaffaroTV 8 months ago
It is important for officers to develop the ability to analyze unusual situations and find solutions, so looking at how officers in the past solved military problems when the situation was very different from today can provide useful information.
zilbiol 8 months ago
what to do if a guy is coming at you in metal armour, shoot him, he is now no longer coming at you....
Ryan0556 8 months ago
Wait, is the description serious? Does the US actually train its officers on what to do if they're facing a man in medieval armor?
mrlimmer 8 months ago
@mrlimmer
I imagine it's more a history lesson or a bit of recreation.
dhx84 8 months ago
ohhhhh so thats wat i have been doing wrong.......
sadband1 8 months ago
Stab him in the guts an- Oh...shit...uhm...quick, help me bury the body!
ThaDudesAvlogger 8 months ago
Is that leather armor? Are you kidding?
DavidUmstattd 9 months ago
@DavidUmstattd Its a coat of plates, yes leather on the outside, but under its metal plates or harden leather.
ThanagarianTragedy 9 months ago
or, if one has a dagger.
4tehlulz9000 9 months ago
ORR You could use a Warhammer and put a giant hole through his helmet.
idontfkinknow1234 9 months ago
Shoot him repeatedly in the cheast with a 9mm pistol. Welcome to the 21 centry
namelessbob22 9 months ago
@namelessbob22 why do you even comment here jackass?
werewolf17 9 months ago
@werewolf17 cus its bad ass that he has the armor
namelessbob22 9 months ago
@namelessbob22 cowardly style of killing
Mastkeiler 9 months ago
@namelessbob22 you spelled century wrong, 21st century full of idiots ...
therasppberry 9 months ago
@therasppberry fuck you just because i coudent spell century at the time that doesnt mean that im an idiot. it just prooves that your are an ass hole that thinks hes cool cus he is a walking dictionary
namelessbob22 9 months ago
@namelessbob22 21st centry, where apparently we loose the ability to spell.
ThanagarianTragedy 9 months ago
@ThanagarianTragedy you are a dick you know that right?
namelessbob22 9 months ago
@namelessbob22 -trollface-
ThanagarianTragedy 9 months ago
@ThanagarianTragedy if thats the best thing you can come up with after some one calls you a dick you should feel shame.
namelessbob22 8 months ago
@ThanagarianTragedy you spelt 'lose' wrong...
ThaDudesAvlogger 8 months ago
@ThaDudesAvlogger Guess im from the 21 centry then.
ThanagarianTragedy 8 months ago
@ThanagarianTragedy I'm from the 21st century and I spell just fine.
ThaDudesAvlogger 8 months ago
OR...stab him in the neck with a hidden blade
1bones8 9 months ago
Ask Indiana Jones...
alucardrub 9 months ago
how the hell did i get from watching * how to turn traffic light green* to *how to kill a man wearing midevil armor*?!?!?!
MrGuitarphenomenon 10 months ago
@MrGuitarphenomenon That's because the internet was designed for porn.
soadfansoad 10 months ago
I'd love to see a revamped modern day steel armor suit, like the old knights. See how much it would take to make him a tank, then add in some kevlar. Would be an awesome project.
JavaJaxRex 10 months ago
How to kill a guy in medieval armor ? just let him run 5KM...
FGEGSFG 10 months ago
@FGEGSFG And he'll be completely fine, because medieval armour is way, way lighter than whatever a soldier carries these days.
xxlebox 9 months ago
Firing a cannon point blank in the face I find is a very effective way of dealing with suited up knights. The difficult part is luring him too the cannon.
SenseiWuzi 10 months ago
that guy has a nice towel on his head.. :L :P
95jjs 10 months ago
one word...explosives
shooteready 10 months ago
@shooteready Indeed, the invention of gunpowder made armor pretty much useless
MikaelDryden 10 months ago
@MikaelDryden
Um, not quite. Gunpoweder was in martial use in the 1320's. Armour continued to be worn right up till the 1700's.
EvilxMerlin 10 months ago
@MikaelDryden some german sturm guys used thick plates in their chest for CQC in WWI
krazykalash 9 months ago
@krazykalash ya, and British tank commanders in ww1 used chain mail helmets to protect against shrapnel
TalonMercenary 9 months ago
Can I hit him a halberd? Then ask hurt or not :-D
teren4m 10 months ago
I get fed up with people saying that armor like that is invincible without specially designed weapons. They think that the knight was 100% covered like there's no segment weak points or anything. Of course at that point one wouldn't be able to move.
WritingFighter 10 months ago
@WritingFighter To reach those segment weak points you will need a specially designed weapon.
There ar no true gaps between the plates of european plate armour. The only places in the armor devoid of plates are the inner surfaces of the elbow joints, the armpits, and the pelvic area, these however are covered with chainmail and heavy padded clothing (the heavy padded clothing extends to below all the armor, and has segments of chainmail sewn into it in the armor's weak points).
stridingshadow 10 months ago
@stridingshadow If there were no gaps, then the wearer wouldn't be able to move or see: that suggests there is a 100% solid set of metal completely encasing the user. That would also be an impossibility because it would mean it was impossible for him to get in or out of the armor. The "gaps" aren't big, but they aren't impenetrable. I'm talking about people who suggest that without gunpowder or a halberd there is 0% chance of wounding a knight at all period. A rapier/dagger works.
WritingFighter 10 months ago
@WritingFighter Have you ever seen the scales on a fish or reptile? There are no gaps between them (the scales cover one another just like roof tiles do), and even though there is an amount of motion between the plates, there are no gaps in well made and designed plate armor. So there were quite few places in the armor without any plate on them (as I mentionned: the armpits, and the inguinal area) and you could hope to stab them with a dagger (or whatever) but it was hardly probable in combat.
stridingshadow 10 months ago
@stridingshadow The biggest gap though, if one can manage to reach it, are the hamstrings, right behind the thighs. Weaknesses double on the back of the knight.
WritingFighter 10 months ago
@WritingFighter Piercing a plate of armor without a projectile weapon or a pike (making profit of the horses' speed) is nearly impossible. Cutting through chainmail with anything short of a longsword (or a polearm, or aa projectile weapon) is as hard. So if you're armed with something not truly designed for anti-armor purposes, you will have to try and hit very few weak spots with little chance of success, even if should land a hit.
stridingshadow 10 months ago