i now have to change my take on all things armor i used to be a firm believer in the knights wear heavy armor they must move like robots train of thought. after seeing how quickly he got up and a couple of other videos about knights doing acrobatics in full plate armor, i find myself changing my mind about how encumbering this armor was.
ya some guy on TV spoke about armor myths. well its also documented several prestiges knights lords and dukes were killed because of the impact of falling off horse...
People are dying today because of the impact of falling off horses. So I don't think that the armor are making it any worse. But you have to agree with Loades, if you do survive the fall it's not that difficult to get up again due to the armor.
When he says it's half as heavy as a "fully equipped marine" is he referring to all the gear and body armor, or armor alone? because if it's gear and armor he's referring to, that would make sense.
@wikieditspam Full gear, the point is not that knightly armour is lighter than what we have now, but that soldiers today fight carrying more weight than the knight did (so they are obviously not immobilised by it).
2nd part, also keep in mind that a lot of english battles were fought in wet muddy areas which would get some knights stuck in the mud when standing, yet alone falling from his horse.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
80lbs...full plate was always worn with a chain mail undergarment weighing an average of 80 lbs alone, the plating was more along the lines of 90-100 lbs and then there was the padding under the chain, a fully armoured knight wore 200lbs of armour, thats 2.5 times the amount of armour this wimp is wearing.
falling from horseback with that much armour tended to break the knees or shoulders.
if the shoulders broke hes out of combat, if the knees broke he's not getting back up.
If you have full plate you don't need a full ring mail. You only have rings where your plate does not cover. You can see this when Loades puts his armor on.
watch?v=dasPQW1fjPM&t=4m25s
As he says, the full thing is /under/ 80 pounds.
For example if you look up museum pieces you will find that many armors are much lighter.
For example 1501.a-n in the higgins armory museum is only 41 lb. 8 oz. maybe w/o ring mail.
Or A22 in the wallace collection 43 lb. 2 oz. maybe w/o ring mail.
@ShadowGricken No, he really isn't. Many people in the comments have pointed out why he isn't right. Your "no he's right" means absolutely nothing, only a support of one troll/uneducated person to another.
@crypticspoon93 Rather than joining in all the people telling you figures, I thought i'd just send a video instead. /watch?v=X3fPHAAqiLI&feature=related - not quite the same armor, but it does have plate and chain.
@Aserox Thanks the armour of foottroops, of course they're not going to wear as much armour, they'd be too poor to afford a horse to carry them into battle yet alone all the extra armour of the mounted knights.
two compeltely different sets of armour there for two compeltely different kidns of troop.
@crypticspoon93 I was just making the point that a man's full armor, with half-plate and chain with his weapons was under 80 pounds, as mentioned in the video :P
@gurkfisk89 we have to think that medieval man were really stronger than modern man..... so if he can do it, i am pretty sure a medieval man would do it even easier
@Panz82 If you were able to speak spanish i could have explained to you in spanish, too bad you don't speak spanish and i don't speak nor french nor italian nor german.
The issue at Crecy or Agincourt was not whether a knight coming off his horse could get up again. It was more of a question of if he could do so before being trampled by another horseman. IIRC, Crecy was very muddy and the ground was very slippery, not ideal cavalry terrain, heavy or otherwise.
Also, the weight is not the only issue- there's not much ventilation. A reason nobody liked to fight in summer.
@althesmith Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read of knights that had to be winched onto their mounts because their armour was so unwieldy, is this true?
@Nightlightknight : Not at all. You may have read it, but it was an invention of Victorian writers. A full suit of armour weighed no more than what a WW2 infantryman's full kit would, and it was distributed over the whole body.
@DavidUmstattd Well some kind of injury then, but then again taking a fall from a horse in perfect health into a soft area of ground is good from proving a point of the lack of true restrictions of armour, but then again, it doesn't take into account many factors of medieval battlefields.
Still, props to mike loades for doing this, top bloke.
Perhaps he'd take marginal injuries but given that swords can't penetrate armor its hard to see how rocks would. Though the blunt trama could cause some amount of damage.
@DavidUmstattd An armour being european doesn't make it better. It's all about how they were made. Aside from that, some of the best steel formulas and armour schemes did come from Europe.
@Hrolfgartheviking The spear would most likely (like, with a 9999/10000 chance.) not penetrate his armour, so he could still use his both feet. Of course, depending on what kind of ground he's falling on, it could become difficult. Like the battle of Agincourt (IIRC), where the french knights got stuck into mud.
@DiabolusIgnis Even the mud wouldn't have been so bad. It was bad, but it wouldn't have been lethal except for one thing.
The french tried to force 10k+ guys through a pass only a hundred yards wide. When a knight fell, he got stepped on by the guy behind him till he drowned by being trampled into the mud.
What a horrible way to go. But the english sure pushed their terrain advantage.
@DiabolusIgnis I'd argue that it would have been just as lethal without the mud. The mud just helped get the job done quicker. Getting stepped on by a few hundred other people is gonna mess you up even in armor.
@nivarion Ah, so that was your point. My bad. Of course it would have been lethal, that's for sure. But a problem is that horsemen rarely charged in a hundred men deep formation, so not that many would have died by trampling. Some yes, but I'd say that only about 10% at most. More got injured of course.
@DiabolusIgnis yes. Agincourt seems to be a prime example of too many chiefs with not enough indians. I still haven't figured out which moron was in charge.
Seems they saw an english army 1/10 their size and thought "Hey, this'll be easy" and attacked in the worst spot they could have.
Fine. But it´s very simple in this saddle. For this epoch, when you may had a 16th century saddle. From 16th century saddle you fall to edge or head. Armour it´s fine.
For all you here, that's why I prefer ancient greek foot combat, you can rely only on your feet, fuck the warrior if he fall from horse and don't know how to fight then????
this guy is speaking nonsence and hee seems to have little information about armor at the time in medieval ages,the counceler of saladin himself said that european knights couldnt get off the ground once knocked down from a horse.
@Yora21 would lie if it is in there interest ,not saying that our weapons were not affective against them and that the only way to defeat them was to knock them from their horses,besides, the casulties amongst heavy knights were low in battle of hattin according to david nicole ,a famous author in osprey military book company,meaning they were captured alive rather than killed,meaning they were not able to fight once knocked from there horses.
Your conclusion is nonsensical. Just because someone is captured alive doesn't mean they couldn't fight when they were on the ground. There are numerous ways someone could be captured alive when they were fighting on foot, ranging from being overwhelmed by numerous foot soldiers, getting hit in the head really hard, and so on.
@Yora21 but you know what, it wasnt said that the knights couldnt get up after falling down but rather that they were not trained to fight on the ground so they were worthless after knocked from their horses,as for the historian point,a lot of european historians lied cause they were sick minded and fueled by radical christian ideas,while we even had christian soldiers and a spanissh crusader who repented to islam even became the garrison head in damascus
I can't see your logic here. You see a man get up from the ground and then say it's not possible to do so.
For the capture alive thing, knights where often noblemen and to capture one will give you a lot of money. So if you where able to capture them by surround them and let them surrender rather than "slay every single one" you get more food on your table.
Knights can fight on ground. Look up harnischfechten (armored fighting) and you see that fighting on foot is well studied.
@gurkfisk89 who told you that he used the same type of armor used at that time,second read my second comment, i say that they may have been able to get up after falling. what is different in battle is that you get knocked off by a sudden shock that throws you on your back or head unlike this guy.a historian with saladin said that latin knights were invincible on horse back but easy target when knocked off,meaning that they can be captured easily.and this is much stronger than your ransom point
Sure a takedown from a horse will place you in a terrible position in combat. I though you meant the "trap like a turtle on back" when they fell of, which not is true. I apologies for that. And if you are outnumbered, which often was the case in the crusades, that would probably be your dead. Not the fall but the short time dissabled.
@gurkfisk89 well i say what the chronicler of saladin said was that they were easy prey when knocked off. it would mean that they traumatised and cant respond quickly after being thrown due to the weight of armor and restrictions on mobility.also european knights atleast at time of saladin were not taught to fight on foot.
This is nonsense. Knights at the time of Saladin /were/ trained to fight on foot. There was no point when they were not, and we have numerous instances in history where knights fought on foot by choice or necessity. For example, we have a variety of sieges, and actions where knights were fighting amongst other soldiers on foot, stiffening up formations. What? Did you think that in sieges knights would ride on horseback over the ramparts?
There is a REASON Saladin's forces mainly employed wearing-down tactics through ranged warfare. Toe-to-toe, mounted or dismounted, the Crusaders would beat the Islamic forces bloody ninety times out of ten.
And yes, I made a deliberate math fail for a reason.
The victories of the third crusade by Richard the Lionhearted were a perfect example of excellent european leadership against the Muslim forces. Particularly the Battle of Arsuf(wiki it, folks), showcasing how ineffective their skirmishing tactics were if the leader can keep his troops from breaking formation. Once the two armies were on equal ground in Arsuf it turned into a muslim slaughterhouse.
And yes, the ramson point also only works in later time in battle between European countries. To get ransom for a captured templar is not that easy. But then, to capture are always better either way. You can't sell a dead man as a slave =)
I don't know if he used accurate armor but Mike Loades try to use as accurate equiptment as he can get afaik. For example, I doubt that he got that plate tailor made for him. But I think that the weight is correct because he specific talks about it.
@gurkfisk89 i know there was ransoming,but the battle data says most of heavily armored knights were captured alive,i dont think that muslim soldiers had time to try and capture each knight if he would stand and continue fighting.thus i think they were captured while recovering from shock of falling from horse.
@gurkfisk89 not at the time of crusades,or atleast at the time of saladin,david nicloe has great knowledge about both crusader and saracin militaries.thus i find what he says credible cause he also brings information about what each team thought of the other and also brings facts about actual battles
Oh I made a misstake. I forgott you spoke about the time of crusades. But I still think that knights templar trained a loot of groundfighting as well as mounted fighting. But it's true that there are no known surviving manual about there training.
And there are numerous errors in muslim documents, including the records of the seventh crusade which list anywhere from 15,000-150,000 /knights/, which is far more than what was taken by the French. "Radical christian ideas" is not really something we can attribute to the majority of Europeans at this point. Radical christianity was not really an entity until the 16th century at the earliest.
The chronicler of saladin said they couldn't get up from the ground after being knocked from horseback? Which chronicler, and could you direct me to the passage where this is stated? Why would this be so, when Knights wore armor that was basically equivalent to those worn by the Arabs at this point (In essence, maille, and some sort of conical steel helm).
Samurai-era katanas would break trying to pierce that kind of armor. The metal they were made out of was not nearly as quality as European armor, mainly due to lack of resources in Japan.
@Raptor747 japs had very little innovation . They could have figured a cheaper and more efficient way to forge weapons and produce steel , but they were too conservative even when compared to the rest of feudal world .
@BlackAcebt2 Milanese and Gothic armor are fairly different. Milanese is simple, generally smooth and without a design. Gothic is more like what is shown in this video, made with grooves and ridges.
any and all information is aprecceated(did i spell that right?, they sud have spellcheack on this site...) now that i have a lead, i can start doing some reasurch on hoe to craft such armor, thanx!
anybody got any intell on the type of full plate he's wearing?, im reffering to tthe desighn, i would dare say that im hopeing to find a schimatics or blue print for that particular desighn, hell at this point, any kind of platemail desighn would be appreceated at this point, anything that could help would be appreceated
also, schamatics for an auto-matic hammer schamatics if any1 can find any would be greatly appreceated!
He's right, I'm a soldier and I can tell you wearing my ballistics armor, weapon, spare ammo, ruck, and various gadgets and gizmos, it's easily 100 to 110 pounds worth of gear. Granted when the bullets start flying we tend to ditch everything but the weapon and spare ammo, but still. It's not all that hard to carry and I can certainly get up from a fall with it all on. It's all about how the weight is carried and distributed across your body.
@hybredmoon That's the beauty of plate armor from that period in time, not only did a full suit average between 50-80 pounds, it is also distributed ALL across the body, and it's right up against you, so there is no "heavy spots". It's entirely possible to sprint in well made plate if you wanted, certainly not crippling as the common assumption usually is.
I have seen Hollywood movies where they lift a knight with rope onto his saddle and this is rubbish too. Some knights could vault onto their horses in full armour.
I read that the wieldiness of armor (and even swords) boil down to weight distribution. Excellent weight distribution can make even a conventional 2-handed sword weigh no less than a fully-loaded assault rifle, which is about 4lbs? I haven;t swung one myself, but I assume it feels nothing like swinging a concrete cube of the same weight.
Not to mention that there's claims that you can still swim in armor, although it's much trickier to do so.
@sompret it's true, i have few swords, wooden one that is lightest around 1,2kg feels heaviest and is worst to fight than almoust 2kg steel longsword. Full armour from end of XVth century is definetly more more agile than 13th century great helmet and chainmail, weight distribution is diffrent, even tough weight is somewhat similiar.
@sompret > Yeah, even the largest combat swords (like great swords or the German Zweihander) were only six or seven pounds, and standard longswords were rarely more than three pounds.
my biggest worry about doing such a stunt would be that the breast plate would jam up into my neck, that can happen, this is esspecially disasterous with unrolled edges...
It also helps that the soldiers wearing it would be strong and in good shape to allow them to fight effectively. Plate armor feels like nothing to a fit melee fighter.
@Swidhelm > And that's actually heavy for plate armor. Most suits weight around forty or fifty pounds depending on the size. We can make it even lighter now with advanced alloys.
Sheer volume of arrows; besides the chances of an arrow striking a joint in the armour, there's the cumulative impact of so many arrows knocking a man off his horse, then the danger of being trampled by other riders or crushed by your own falling horse. Plus a fall from horseback can be fatal anyway; Loades fell deliberately and landed well, but the armour itself wouldn't have bee much help in the fall.
@zzfxxx Armour doesn't help your cause much in a battle when you have incompetent leadership. At Crecy, the French were divided and disorganized by internal dissent and they ran around like headless chickens. At Agincourt, they had to struggle through a field of mud (this is tough even without armour) while constantly taking arrowfire, and when they finally fell upon the English lines, the archers dropped their bows and charged in. The influx of fresh troops turned the tide.
apparently things change when falling in mud, as i understoofd from the 'lost battlefields' doco on agincourt, they noted a piece of steel and piece of cloth armour each the same size, they put them in mud, and notedthat the steel took considerably more force to overcome the adhesion to the md by the steel (this is partly du to the ion structure of soil, which essentiall means that soil particles attract to certain surfaces,
First comment I've honestly wanted to put up on youtube - thank you for proving that you can get up like that wearing plate and proving a point I've tried to make to friends xD awesome. And thumbs up that ya didn't get hurt.
You are extremely intelligent; but you should look forward at new materials and methods, like titanium, boron carbide, and selective laser sintering, these materials cannot be forged in the presence of oxygen because they will burn first;but they are refractories, so they will only burn at very high temperatures (look in Wiki for the exact numbers).
but that's just a dude wearing an 80 pound armor. how about wearing the armor including a weapon an other accessories. that would add up the weight. enough to make the knight clumsier.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
not clumsy but immobile. that is what i meant, they are not like ironclad zombies. however that weight can wear a knight down. why should he not try wearing himself down and wear armor in complete set with helmet, shields and swords or even lances. let see if he can get up with those weight in exhausted state. with all of those added that 80 pound armor could weigh 100 pounds or more.
Most Knights that had plate armor did not have shield. Also, I have no idea why he said 80lbs. Most armor like that were 55 to 60 lbs. Some were as light as 44 lbs!
Also modern troops carry about the same lode but less evenly distributed They do not were down that easily, they can even crawl in the mud!
"Also, I have no idea why he said 80lbs. Most armor like that were 55 to 60 lbs. Some were as light as 44 lbs!"
He did say Milanese armour, which to my understanding was heavier than most others. A well made Gothic harness would weigh in at 40-60 lbs.
Of course, like with anything else, cratfsmanship varied, and it is not inconceivable that not-quite-master armourers would make not-quite-perfect armour. You had armourers who were famous, and armourers who weren't.
maybe he was referring the later issued that was designed to deflect guns... i guess. if not, probably a fully equipped knight with this weapons included. how would a lance weigh anyway?
Most of the time they did not have chain-mail under the armor, and it was not a chain-mail shirt but a padded arming jacket that had chain-mail over the open padded parts like the arm pits and such... (Those parts had chain-mail over/hooted to the arming jacket)
The Arming jacket it self is a soft armor, and it can do reasonably well vs most arrows and ok vs sword slash...
wow thats way to high. The heaviest chainmail would be 40 lbs. Add 5 lbs of padding and thats 45 lbs tops. And with chainmail you get better flexibility, and you wont turn into canned meat if you are fighting in hot climate. I would rather wear chainmail and maybe a hard leather vest on top than wear plate armour.
You dont get better flexibility in chain vs good design plate. You can do acrobatics in the latter,
And protection level is just incomparable. Plate absorbs a hit and distributes it through the surface. Chain can't do this and impact force remains concentrated,
@BadHobbid not neccesarilly. I would have the advantage of speed and flexiblity over him. I can keep blocking his hits with my shield untill hes really worn down and then I go on the offensive
consider the fact that he chose HOW he wanted to fall.
If anyone here does own horses, maybe they share my pain of being thrown over horse from it bucking after being bitten by a snake.
I broke my clauvicle, I think this guy choosing to fall on his rump (which hardly happens in most horse falling incidents) I think had I been thrown from my horse in plate armor, I would have been truly hosed.
if the horse had fallen side ways, his leg would have been pinned in the stirrup.
Well naturally when you fall from a horse, you're going to be having trouble. This happens in armor, or out of armor. People today who wear no armor get injured falling off of horses, but the point of this video is to demonstrate that even if you're wearing armor, you can still get up if you fall from horseback.
That is to say, it is not the /weight/ of the armor that prevents one from getting up, as shown here. Other elements such as impact would be more disastrous.
True if the horse fell to pin his leg he'd be in trouble. Then again even without armour on he'd be in trouble in that scenario. Also I think he chose to fall on his backside because in combat head to head with a charging enemy you would probably fall back like that.
That´s just astonishing! Really interesting! But imagine the armour would sort of buckle when it hits the ground??? The smiths of the time must have been so so skillful!
I've been thrown by horses before and even without armor it hurts like hell and sometimes you can't just get up after the fall. In a battle, that could mean certain death since you're not able to defend yourself.
He landed on his butt
SuperRoadkill10 2 weeks ago
0:53
London Bridge is falling down,
Falling down, falling down.
London Bridge is falling down,
My fair lady.
TJPinoy 3 weeks ago
dramatic as ever Mike, love it!
TopGunJAB 1 month ago
He just jumped off of his horse like "whatever"
jpptgaiv 3 months ago 12
@jpptgaiv I now suddenly feel like saving a screenshot of him slipping off the horse just so I can put up the macro "Like I give a fuck" under him.
chipmunx 1 month ago
I never thought somebody could look badass falling from a horse, but this guy makes it look so graceful! Plate armor rocks!
southboundslunk 3 months ago
i now have to change my take on all things armor i used to be a firm believer in the knights wear heavy armor they must move like robots train of thought. after seeing how quickly he got up and a couple of other videos about knights doing acrobatics in full plate armor, i find myself changing my mind about how encumbering this armor was.
Heiryuu 4 months ago 2
ya some guy on TV spoke about armor myths. well its also documented several prestiges knights lords and dukes were killed because of the impact of falling off horse...
MrMeineNamen 4 months ago
@MrMeineNamen
People are dying today because of the impact of falling off horses. So I don't think that the armor are making it any worse. But you have to agree with Loades, if you do survive the fall it's not that difficult to get up again due to the armor.
gurkfisk89 4 months ago
@gurkfisk89 exactly
MrMeineNamen 4 months ago
When he says it's half as heavy as a "fully equipped marine" is he referring to all the gear and body armor, or armor alone? because if it's gear and armor he's referring to, that would make sense.
wikieditspam 6 months ago
@wikieditspam Full gear, the point is not that knightly armour is lighter than what we have now, but that soldiers today fight carrying more weight than the knight did (so they are obviously not immobilised by it).
Railstarfish 6 months ago
@wikieditspam Gear aswell as body armour and ammunition, I would assume, as your equipment is 40%-ish of the weight carried by a modern soldier. :)
teagm003 5 months ago
2nd part, also keep in mind that a lot of english battles were fought in wet muddy areas which would get some knights stuck in the mud when standing, yet alone falling from his horse.
crypticspoon93 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
80lbs...full plate was always worn with a chain mail undergarment weighing an average of 80 lbs alone, the plating was more along the lines of 90-100 lbs and then there was the padding under the chain, a fully armoured knight wore 200lbs of armour, thats 2.5 times the amount of armour this wimp is wearing.
falling from horseback with that much armour tended to break the knees or shoulders.
if the shoulders broke hes out of combat, if the knees broke he's not getting back up.
crypticspoon93 7 months ago
@crypticspoon93
If you have full plate you don't need a full ring mail. You only have rings where your plate does not cover. You can see this when Loades puts his armor on.
watch?v=dasPQW1fjPM&t=4m25s
As he says, the full thing is /under/ 80 pounds.
For example if you look up museum pieces you will find that many armors are much lighter.
For example 1501.a-n in the higgins armory museum is only 41 lb. 8 oz. maybe w/o ring mail.
Or A22 in the wallace collection 43 lb. 2 oz. maybe w/o ring mail.
gurkfisk89 7 months ago 18
@crypticspoon93 Not sure where you're pulling these ridiculous numbers from, probably your ass. None of what you're saying is true.
JanPospisil42 7 months ago 15
@JanPospisil42 no he's right
ShadowGricken 4 months ago
@ShadowGricken No, he really isn't. Many people in the comments have pointed out why he isn't right. Your "no he's right" means absolutely nothing, only a support of one troll/uneducated person to another.
JanPospisil42 4 months ago
@JanPospisil42 then what, pray tell. is correct?
ShadowGricken 4 months ago
@crypticspoon93 You're so stupid that I won't even bother to point out how blatantly illogical and moronic your statement is.
RasdenFasden 6 months ago
@crypticspoon93 If armor was so debilitating, why would anyone have worn it?
JohnRaptor 6 months ago
@crypticspoon93 Rather than joining in all the people telling you figures, I thought i'd just send a video instead. /watch?v=X3fPHAAqiLI&feature=related - not quite the same armor, but it does have plate and chain.
Aserox 4 months ago
@Aserox Thanks the armour of foottroops, of course they're not going to wear as much armour, they'd be too poor to afford a horse to carry them into battle yet alone all the extra armour of the mounted knights.
two compeltely different sets of armour there for two compeltely different kidns of troop.
crypticspoon93 4 months ago
@crypticspoon93 I was just making the point that a man's full armor, with half-plate and chain with his weapons was under 80 pounds, as mentioned in the video :P
Aserox 4 months ago
This guy should have been Ser Barristan Selmy in A Game of Thrones xD
feorwine 7 months ago
@feorwine Oh man I missed so many episodes. XD
goldman77700 7 months ago
ok
dusindia14 7 months ago
omg my butt hurts after watching this :D
MrCifko 7 months ago
@MrCifko
dusindia14 7 months ago
can some1 explain me what was the purpose of this demo? (i dont speak english very good)
Panz82 7 months ago
@Panz82
Mostly that medieval armor is not heavy and that a person that falls of his horse, wearing armor, can get up.
gurkfisk89 7 months ago
@gurkfisk89 we have to think that medieval man were really stronger than modern man..... so if he can do it, i am pretty sure a medieval man would do it even easier
Panz82 7 months ago
@Panz82 What language do you speak?
PleasedToBeHere1 7 months ago
@PleasedToBeHere1 italian. french, german and a bit of english ;)
Panz82 7 months ago
@Panz82 If you were able to speak spanish i could have explained to you in spanish, too bad you don't speak spanish and i don't speak nor french nor italian nor german.
PleasedToBeHere1 7 months ago
@PleasedToBeHere1 hahahahaha some1 already did it :)
Panz82 7 months ago
The issue at Crecy or Agincourt was not whether a knight coming off his horse could get up again. It was more of a question of if he could do so before being trampled by another horseman. IIRC, Crecy was very muddy and the ground was very slippery, not ideal cavalry terrain, heavy or otherwise.
Also, the weight is not the only issue- there's not much ventilation. A reason nobody liked to fight in summer.
althesmith 8 months ago
@althesmith Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read of knights that had to be winched onto their mounts because their armour was so unwieldy, is this true?
Nightlightknight 7 months ago
@Nightlightknight : Not at all. You may have read it, but it was an invention of Victorian writers. A full suit of armour weighed no more than what a WW2 infantryman's full kit would, and it was distributed over the whole body.
althesmith 7 months ago
@althesmith I thought as much, It seemed utterly impractical particularly since the risk of being unhorsed was significant in full battle
Nightlightknight 7 months ago
@Nightlightknight
I like how you use logic and see that some claims sounds stupid. And if they sound stupid they probably are.
Have a nice day.
gurkfisk89 7 months ago
he trained in falling saftey, sasme as knight would have been. why dont they teach this mordern horse riding?
ishotthesherifswife 9 months ago
@ishotthesherifswife: Health and safety no doubt.
kanenkitten 8 months ago
lucky not to break his tail bone! yeesh
Indabaz 10 months ago
I love how people are still contesting this despite this completely obvious test.
DavidUmstattd 10 months ago
A modern knight
aclock2 11 months ago
One simple reason would be WHY you've fallen off a horse.
Taking a spear to the leg would make it very difficult to get up using one leg even unarmoured.
Hrolfgartheviking 11 months ago
@Hrolfgartheviking
If your wearing the armor then being struck by the spear wouldn't do much. Armor is extremely difficult to penetrait. Especially European armor.
DavidUmstattd 11 months ago
@DavidUmstattd Well some kind of injury then, but then again taking a fall from a horse in perfect health into a soft area of ground is good from proving a point of the lack of true restrictions of armour, but then again, it doesn't take into account many factors of medieval battlefields.
Still, props to mike loades for doing this, top bloke.
Hrolfgartheviking 11 months ago
@Hrolfgartheviking
Perhaps he'd take marginal injuries but given that swords can't penetrate armor its hard to see how rocks would. Though the blunt trama could cause some amount of damage.
DavidUmstattd 10 months ago
@DavidUmstattd An armour being european doesn't make it better. It's all about how they were made. Aside from that, some of the best steel formulas and armour schemes did come from Europe.
DiabolusIgnis 10 months ago
@Hrolfgartheviking The spear would most likely (like, with a 9999/10000 chance.) not penetrate his armour, so he could still use his both feet. Of course, depending on what kind of ground he's falling on, it could become difficult. Like the battle of Agincourt (IIRC), where the french knights got stuck into mud.
DiabolusIgnis 10 months ago
@DiabolusIgnis Even the mud wouldn't have been so bad. It was bad, but it wouldn't have been lethal except for one thing.
The french tried to force 10k+ guys through a pass only a hundred yards wide. When a knight fell, he got stepped on by the guy behind him till he drowned by being trampled into the mud.
What a horrible way to go. But the english sure pushed their terrain advantage.
nivarion 10 months ago
@nivarion My point, they got stuck into the mud...
DiabolusIgnis 10 months ago
@DiabolusIgnis I'd argue that it would have been just as lethal without the mud. The mud just helped get the job done quicker. Getting stepped on by a few hundred other people is gonna mess you up even in armor.
nivarion 10 months ago
@nivarion Ah, so that was your point. My bad. Of course it would have been lethal, that's for sure. But a problem is that horsemen rarely charged in a hundred men deep formation, so not that many would have died by trampling. Some yes, but I'd say that only about 10% at most. More got injured of course.
DiabolusIgnis 10 months ago
@DiabolusIgnis yes. Agincourt seems to be a prime example of too many chiefs with not enough indians. I still haven't figured out which moron was in charge.
Seems they saw an english army 1/10 their size and thought "Hey, this'll be easy" and attacked in the worst spot they could have.
nivarion 10 months ago
@nivarion Yeah, the French army made too many tactical miscalculations.
DiabolusIgnis 10 months ago
Fine. But it´s very simple in this saddle. For this epoch, when you may had a 16th century saddle. From 16th century saddle you fall to edge or head. Armour it´s fine.
valeerius 11 months ago
He landed on his rump....ouch!
HollerboyHellbilly 1 year ago
For all you here, that's why I prefer ancient greek foot combat, you can rely only on your feet, fuck the warrior if he fall from horse and don't know how to fight then????
rapid287 1 year ago
this guy is speaking nonsence and hee seems to have little information about armor at the time in medieval ages,the counceler of saladin himself said that european knights couldnt get off the ground once knocked down from a horse.
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov Breaking News: Historians and chroniclers often lied or wrote down false claims. ; )
Yora21 1 year ago
@Yora21 would lie if it is in there interest ,not saying that our weapons were not affective against them and that the only way to defeat them was to knock them from their horses,besides, the casulties amongst heavy knights were low in battle of hattin according to david nicole ,a famous author in osprey military book company,meaning they were captured alive rather than killed,meaning they were not able to fight once knocked from there horses.
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
Your conclusion is nonsensical. Just because someone is captured alive doesn't mean they couldn't fight when they were on the ground. There are numerous ways someone could be captured alive when they were fighting on foot, ranging from being overwhelmed by numerous foot soldiers, getting hit in the head really hard, and so on.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Yora21 but you know what, it wasnt said that the knights couldnt get up after falling down but rather that they were not trained to fight on the ground so they were worthless after knocked from their horses,as for the historian point,a lot of european historians lied cause they were sick minded and fueled by radical christian ideas,while we even had christian soldiers and a spanissh crusader who repented to islam even became the garrison head in damascus
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
I can't see your logic here. You see a man get up from the ground and then say it's not possible to do so.
For the capture alive thing, knights where often noblemen and to capture one will give you a lot of money. So if you where able to capture them by surround them and let them surrender rather than "slay every single one" you get more food on your table.
Knights can fight on ground. Look up harnischfechten (armored fighting) and you see that fighting on foot is well studied.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89 who told you that he used the same type of armor used at that time,second read my second comment, i say that they may have been able to get up after falling. what is different in battle is that you get knocked off by a sudden shock that throws you on your back or head unlike this guy.a historian with saladin said that latin knights were invincible on horse back but easy target when knocked off,meaning that they can be captured easily.and this is much stronger than your ransom point
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
Sure a takedown from a horse will place you in a terrible position in combat. I though you meant the "trap like a turtle on back" when they fell of, which not is true. I apologies for that. And if you are outnumbered, which often was the case in the crusades, that would probably be your dead. Not the fall but the short time dissabled.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89 well i say what the chronicler of saladin said was that they were easy prey when knocked off. it would mean that they traumatised and cant respond quickly after being thrown due to the weight of armor and restrictions on mobility.also european knights atleast at time of saladin were not taught to fight on foot.
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
This is nonsense. Knights at the time of Saladin /were/ trained to fight on foot. There was no point when they were not, and we have numerous instances in history where knights fought on foot by choice or necessity. For example, we have a variety of sieges, and actions where knights were fighting amongst other soldiers on foot, stiffening up formations. What? Did you think that in sieges knights would ride on horseback over the ramparts?
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis
Damn, boy, you just served that motha.
There is a REASON Saladin's forces mainly employed wearing-down tactics through ranged warfare. Toe-to-toe, mounted or dismounted, the Crusaders would beat the Islamic forces bloody ninety times out of ten.
And yes, I made a deliberate math fail for a reason.
dagdamor1 1 year ago
@Caliburnis
The victories of the third crusade by Richard the Lionhearted were a perfect example of excellent european leadership against the Muslim forces. Particularly the Battle of Arsuf(wiki it, folks), showcasing how ineffective their skirmishing tactics were if the leader can keep his troops from breaking formation. Once the two armies were on equal ground in Arsuf it turned into a muslim slaughterhouse.
WitheringintheDark 10 months ago
@ahmadov
And yes, the ramson point also only works in later time in battle between European countries. To get ransom for a captured templar is not that easy. But then, to capture are always better either way. You can't sell a dead man as a slave =)
I don't know if he used accurate armor but Mike Loades try to use as accurate equiptment as he can get afaik. For example, I doubt that he got that plate tailor made for him. But I think that the weight is correct because he specific talks about it.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89 i know there was ransoming,but the battle data says most of heavily armored knights were captured alive,i dont think that muslim soldiers had time to try and capture each knight if he would stand and continue fighting.thus i think they were captured while recovering from shock of falling from horse.
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
Even grappling and wrestling was trained by knights, both in armor and without armor. Look up Ringen and Kampfringen.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89 not at the time of crusades,or atleast at the time of saladin,david nicloe has great knowledge about both crusader and saracin militaries.thus i find what he says credible cause he also brings information about what each team thought of the other and also brings facts about actual battles
ahmadov 1 year ago
@ahmadov
Oh I made a misstake. I forgott you spoke about the time of crusades. But I still think that knights templar trained a loot of groundfighting as well as mounted fighting. But it's true that there are no known surviving manual about there training.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@ahmadov
And there are numerous errors in muslim documents, including the records of the seventh crusade which list anywhere from 15,000-150,000 /knights/, which is far more than what was taken by the French. "Radical christian ideas" is not really something we can attribute to the majority of Europeans at this point. Radical christianity was not really an entity until the 16th century at the earliest.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@ahmadov
The chronicler of saladin said they couldn't get up from the ground after being knocked from horseback? Which chronicler, and could you direct me to the passage where this is stated? Why would this be so, when Knights wore armor that was basically equivalent to those worn by the Arabs at this point (In essence, maille, and some sort of conical steel helm).
Caliburnis 1 year ago
This dude has ball of steel!
amig90 1 year ago
now is it proven that a knight knock from his horse will not able to get up fast ?
Gab1n0III 1 year ago
but i bet a samurai would kill him
Ratama 1 year ago
@Ratama
Samurai-era katanas would break trying to pierce that kind of armor. The metal they were made out of was not nearly as quality as European armor, mainly due to lack of resources in Japan.
Raptor747 1 year ago 2
@Raptor747 japs had very little innovation . They could have figured a cheaper and more efficient way to forge weapons and produce steel , but they were too conservative even when compared to the rest of feudal world .
sewagedweller 1 year ago
@Ratama and you would most centainly lose the bet
mechupanlamonda 1 year ago
@Ratama i bet you're stupid . samurai fanboy
sewagedweller 1 year ago
@pappyDApirate It's commonly known as either Milanese Plate or Gothic Armor.
BlackAcebt2 1 year ago
@BlackAcebt2
Are you saying they were the same thing, because i dont think that was the case. They were similar but not the same.
MoonLancer 1 year ago
@BlackAcebt2 Milanese and Gothic armor are fairly different. Milanese is simple, generally smooth and without a design. Gothic is more like what is shown in this video, made with grooves and ridges.
demomanchaos 1 year ago
any and all information is aprecceated(did i spell that right?, they sud have spellcheack on this site...) now that i have a lead, i can start doing some reasurch on hoe to craft such armor, thanx!
pappyDApirate 1 year ago
anybody got any intell on the type of full plate he's wearing?, im reffering to tthe desighn, i would dare say that im hopeing to find a schimatics or blue print for that particular desighn, hell at this point, any kind of platemail desighn would be appreceated at this point, anything that could help would be appreceated
also, schamatics for an auto-matic hammer schamatics if any1 can find any would be greatly appreceated!
pappyDApirate 1 year ago
@pappyDApirate Pappy, I've heard people refer to it as milanese plate.
Frost2k6 1 year ago
@Frost2k6 Looks like gothic to me.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
He's right, I'm a soldier and I can tell you wearing my ballistics armor, weapon, spare ammo, ruck, and various gadgets and gizmos, it's easily 100 to 110 pounds worth of gear. Granted when the bullets start flying we tend to ditch everything but the weapon and spare ammo, but still. It's not all that hard to carry and I can certainly get up from a fall with it all on. It's all about how the weight is carried and distributed across your body.
hybredmoon 1 year ago
@hybredmoon That's the beauty of plate armor from that period in time, not only did a full suit average between 50-80 pounds, it is also distributed ALL across the body, and it's right up against you, so there is no "heavy spots". It's entirely possible to sprint in well made plate if you wanted, certainly not crippling as the common assumption usually is.
CatalystDestiny 1 year ago
And he is not that big a fellow. A professional soldier would get up a hell of a lot quicker.
hkdharmon 1 year ago
Yeah right i want to see you old man getting hit by a lance at high speed and then get up...
PompeusMagnus 1 year ago
@PompeusMagnus
He will have greater chanses to get up than one without armor. But yes, a lance at high speed will have good chanses to kill, that's why it was used.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
I have seen Hollywood movies where they lift a knight with rope onto his saddle and this is rubbish too. Some knights could vault onto their horses in full armour.
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
fuck, thats pretty sore looking
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
medieval armor is surprisingly lithe
zackhanscom 1 year ago
I read that the wieldiness of armor (and even swords) boil down to weight distribution. Excellent weight distribution can make even a conventional 2-handed sword weigh no less than a fully-loaded assault rifle, which is about 4lbs? I haven;t swung one myself, but I assume it feels nothing like swinging a concrete cube of the same weight.
Not to mention that there's claims that you can still swim in armor, although it's much trickier to do so.
sompret 1 year ago
@sompret it's true, i have few swords, wooden one that is lightest around 1,2kg feels heaviest and is worst to fight than almoust 2kg steel longsword. Full armour from end of XVth century is definetly more more agile than 13th century great helmet and chainmail, weight distribution is diffrent, even tough weight is somewhat similiar.
perdurabo1 1 year ago
@sompret > Yeah, even the largest combat swords (like great swords or the German Zweihander) were only six or seven pounds, and standard longswords were rarely more than three pounds.
HentaiGuy42 1 year ago
@HentaiGuy42 indeed. There are some historical two handed swords made by blade masters with 52 inch total length. That weigh under three pounds.
Or so says a historian at the ARMA who's picked up some of the old masterworks. I think I'll take his word for it. :D
nivarion 1 year ago
my biggest worry about doing such a stunt would be that the breast plate would jam up into my neck, that can happen, this is esspecially disasterous with unrolled edges...
spleegulence 1 year ago
And of course he land ed on the only part of his body that wasn't armored! :P
BlackWaltz5 1 year ago
Wow milanese armour is under 80lbs? Gothic is lighter than that too from what I understand. Half the reasoning behind all the fluting.
Swidhelm 1 year ago
@Swidhelm
It also helps that the soldiers wearing it would be strong and in good shape to allow them to fight effectively. Plate armor feels like nothing to a fit melee fighter.
chitoryu12 1 year ago
@chitoryu12 That's a good point. For some reason though I just assumed the armour was heavier.
Swidhelm 1 year ago
@Swidhelm > And that's actually heavy for plate armor. Most suits weight around forty or fifty pounds depending on the size. We can make it even lighter now with advanced alloys.
HentaiGuy42 1 year ago
longbow can't pierce the armour felling off the horse can still stand up BUT why so many knights still got killed in Agincourt and Crecy
zzfxxx 1 year ago
Sheer volume of arrows; besides the chances of an arrow striking a joint in the armour, there's the cumulative impact of so many arrows knocking a man off his horse, then the danger of being trampled by other riders or crushed by your own falling horse. Plus a fall from horseback can be fatal anyway; Loades fell deliberately and landed well, but the armour itself wouldn't have bee much help in the fall.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
it could pierce plate armour, but thats with ideal circumstances at close range, however, it can easily go through chainmaille
ewbecht 1 year ago
@zzfxxx Armour doesn't help your cause much in a battle when you have incompetent leadership. At Crecy, the French were divided and disorganized by internal dissent and they ran around like headless chickens. At Agincourt, they had to struggle through a field of mud (this is tough even without armour) while constantly taking arrowfire, and when they finally fell upon the English lines, the archers dropped their bows and charged in. The influx of fresh troops turned the tide.
halfassedfart 1 year ago
What a maniac. I laughed my ass off when he suddenly flew off his horse.
tellmeitsnottaken 1 year ago
apparently things change when falling in mud, as i understoofd from the 'lost battlefields' doco on agincourt, they noted a piece of steel and piece of cloth armour each the same size, they put them in mud, and notedthat the steel took considerably more force to overcome the adhesion to the md by the steel (this is partly du to the ion structure of soil, which essentiall means that soil particles attract to certain surfaces,
elgostine 2 years ago
This guy makes me scared of the British.
;_;
Coberholt 2 years ago 22
Now thats a bloke who puts his money where his mouth is, & does all his own stunts...good sh-t!
Thanks for posting these great vids, & have a good one; cheers.
anzac2404 2 years ago 5
First comment I've honestly wanted to put up on youtube - thank you for proving that you can get up like that wearing plate and proving a point I've tried to make to friends xD awesome. And thumbs up that ya didn't get hurt.
TacoGrande88 2 years ago
i thought the dead horse kept them from getting up. those things almost weigh a ton
wilsonandbrent 2 years ago
haha I love what he says at the end
If you've ever carried an MTV flak with SAW ammo youd understand
USMCM249gunner 2 years ago
Note that he said *under* 80 pounds.
halfassedfart 2 years ago
You are extremely intelligent; but you should look forward at new materials and methods, like titanium, boron carbide, and selective laser sintering, these materials cannot be forged in the presence of oxygen because they will burn first;but they are refractories, so they will only burn at very high temperatures (look in Wiki for the exact numbers).
YoungBrave2006 2 years ago
God he's game, I've taken tumbles like that off a horse, never on purpose, never wearing metal. Respect!
Classensify 2 years ago 89
@Classensify
well he is waering protection
celestialsalamander 7 months ago
wow hes a beast
amadeus987 2 years ago
excellent stunt old man
mittROMNEY666 2 years ago
Man, I hope I'm badass enough to fall of a horse and scramble back up when I'm Mr. Loades' age.
Kunstdesfechtens 2 years ago 2
Hes one of the few people I know who would fall off of a horse to prove a point lol
WolfOfBloodAndBone 2 years ago 12
Very good! I LIKE THAT!
Thanks!
Jame243 2 years ago
Excellent!
Octavius0 2 years ago
try doing that in a tilting armor
Vlodimer 2 years ago
Comment removed
Vlodimer 2 years ago
Or if you were knocked from a saddle by a crossbow bolt that would stick between your ribs, i doubt you'd be able to stand up.
But the purpose of the video is to show that the knight wasn't a clumsy piece of metal that couldn't stand up if knocked down.
Ranziel1 2 years ago 7
but that's just a dude wearing an 80 pound armor. how about wearing the armor including a weapon an other accessories. that would add up the weight. enough to make the knight clumsier.
reaperonlineIAM 2 years ago
i mean and... sorry for my mistake.
reaperonlineIAM 2 years ago
Ok, add 2 pounds for a sword. Other accessories, like what? Seems that you just want European knights to be clumsy and slow, get over the myth.
Ranziel1 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not clumsy but immobile. that is what i meant, they are not like ironclad zombies. however that weight can wear a knight down. why should he not try wearing himself down and wear armor in complete set with helmet, shields and swords or even lances. let see if he can get up with those weight in exhausted state. with all of those added that 80 pound armor could weigh 100 pounds or more.
reaperonlineIAM 2 years ago
Most Knights that had plate armor did not have shield. Also, I have no idea why he said 80lbs. Most armor like that were 55 to 60 lbs. Some were as light as 44 lbs!
Also modern troops carry about the same lode but less evenly distributed They do not were down that easily, they can even crawl in the mud!
255Knights 2 years ago
Remember Agincourt
reaperonlineIAM 2 years ago
Battle of Patay
255Knights 2 years ago
"Also, I have no idea why he said 80lbs. Most armor like that were 55 to 60 lbs. Some were as light as 44 lbs!"
He did say Milanese armour, which to my understanding was heavier than most others. A well made Gothic harness would weigh in at 40-60 lbs.
Of course, like with anything else, cratfsmanship varied, and it is not inconceivable that not-quite-master armourers would make not-quite-perfect armour. You had armourers who were famous, and armourers who weren't.
Gilmaris 1 year ago
That's why they do this thing called training, so their bodies can handle the weight for longer periods of time.
Bertziethegreat 2 years ago
How much do you think they weigh? Another 5-10lb's maybe? He can drop them in anycase and draw a secondary weapon.
Asgath 2 years ago
Did he say 80lbs? WOW that is very heavy for armor! Most were 55 to 60 lbs!
Well what weapon? Like a one handed sword? Those were about 2 lbs!
255Knights 2 years ago
maybe he was referring the later issued that was designed to deflect guns... i guess. if not, probably a fully equipped knight with this weapons included. how would a lance weigh anyway?
reaperonlineIAM 2 years ago
Well, chainmail and padding would make it 80 lbs, I suppose.
Ranziel1 2 years ago 2
Most of the time they did not have chain-mail under the armor, and it was not a chain-mail shirt but a padded arming jacket that had chain-mail over the open padded parts like the arm pits and such... (Those parts had chain-mail over/hooted to the arming jacket)
The Arming jacket it self is a soft armor, and it can do reasonably well vs most arrows and ok vs sword slash...
255Knights 2 years ago
Most armors were not 80 lbs, but 50 to 65. There were some as light as 44 lbs! It depends on the type of armor and the size of the man...
255Knights 2 years ago
wow thats way to high. The heaviest chainmail would be 40 lbs. Add 5 lbs of padding and thats 45 lbs tops. And with chainmail you get better flexibility, and you wont turn into canned meat if you are fighting in hot climate. I would rather wear chainmail and maybe a hard leather vest on top than wear plate armour.
amadeus987 2 years ago
You dont get better flexibility in chain vs good design plate. You can do acrobatics in the latter,
And protection level is just incomparable. Plate absorbs a hit and distributes it through the surface. Chain can't do this and impact force remains concentrated,
Hot climate is bad, yup :-)
GetAssista 2 years ago 3
Well I am no expert when it comes to plate armour, but whenever I see people fighting with plate, their movement just seems sluggish.
amadeus987 2 years ago
Mail is more of a pain in the ass to wear because its weight doesn't distribute properly.
Anyway, you can wear a surcoat to keep the sun off bare metal.
halfassedfart 2 years ago
Actually the weight of mail can be distributed well by simply wearing a belt.
amadeus987 2 years ago
then, against a well armored men, your a dead one.
BadHobbid 2 years ago
@BadHobbid not neccesarilly. I would have the advantage of speed and flexiblity over him. I can keep blocking his hits with my shield untill hes really worn down and then I go on the offensive
amadeus987 2 years ago
consider the fact that he chose HOW he wanted to fall.
If anyone here does own horses, maybe they share my pain of being thrown over horse from it bucking after being bitten by a snake.
I broke my clauvicle, I think this guy choosing to fall on his rump (which hardly happens in most horse falling incidents) I think had I been thrown from my horse in plate armor, I would have been truly hosed.
if the horse had fallen side ways, his leg would have been pinned in the stirrup.
DudukIsTehBest 2 years ago
Well naturally when you fall from a horse, you're going to be having trouble. This happens in armor, or out of armor. People today who wear no armor get injured falling off of horses, but the point of this video is to demonstrate that even if you're wearing armor, you can still get up if you fall from horseback.
That is to say, it is not the /weight/ of the armor that prevents one from getting up, as shown here. Other elements such as impact would be more disastrous.
Caliburnis 2 years ago 13
True if the horse fell to pin his leg he'd be in trouble. Then again even without armour on he'd be in trouble in that scenario. Also I think he chose to fall on his backside because in combat head to head with a charging enemy you would probably fall back like that.
CaptainNatos 2 years ago
That´s just astonishing! Really interesting! But imagine the armour would sort of buckle when it hits the ground??? The smiths of the time must have been so so skillful!
EowynViktoria 2 years ago 3
check out my videos on youtube (Viking vs. samurai : Thrand's aftermath part 1, 2 and 3 and also fighting bonus video)
ThegnThrand 2 years ago
This entire series was excellent.
humungus3 2 years ago 2
Thumbs up to him for throwing himself off a horse, fully armored.
TYKKETYKKE 2 years ago 2
Landing on his side too, instead on a wider surface like the front or back.
whop9 2 years ago
I've been thrown by horses before and even without armor it hurts like hell and sometimes you can't just get up after the fall. In a battle, that could mean certain death since you're not able to defend yourself.
But that has nothing to do with the armor.
Jelperman 2 years ago 2