Conquest Knights in Armour - Part 3

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
16,955
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Feb 25, 2010

Conquest Tv show

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 1 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Knights and firearms coexisted for a hundred years, and an early musket ball had little chance of penetrating the knight's armor. It was economics that killed the knight, not firearms.

  • the gothic armor - early proof of german engeneering qualities :D

Video Responses

This video is a response to Conquest Knights in Armour - Part 2
see all

All Comments (35)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Wish they never invented guns.

  • Now etch some gargoyles in that gothic armor.

  • @equallyeasilyfuqyou I think this episode showed that the armour could stop it, but the bones inside would break.

  • Plate armor and balls of steal. Perfect knight.

  • @HolzmannsKnogar I used to watch Conquest, but then I took a knee to the arrow.

  • @Hotshotter3000 proved by english longbowmen during the hundred years war

  • @13jhow That is true. In fact, armorers were actually pressed to make better armor when firearms started to catch up and so when a man went to go purchase a piece (usually a cuirass) he would always check for round dent in the armor showing its proof that it could resist bullets, hence the term "bullet proof".

  • @13jhow They also forgot that pikemen had more to do with the downfall of knights than the early guns. Plus the longbow could penetrate a knights armor, too, and the crossbow as well.

  • remind me why i am looking at these vids? all he is doing is making my buthole clench in anger.. so to speak.. "not even an axe could get thru.." well thats not the idea! you hope fpr the impact to be big enough so the schockwave brakes ribs and other fun stuff.. btw i dont really care about my spelling, you get my point :)

  • @kaindrg Knights were expensive to field compared to musketeers and pikemen, or lighter cavalry using pistols and light lances, and just wernt really worth the cost since they wernt as effective as they had been Knights were also expensive to maintain, train and field on a long campaign, particularly the cost of the armour for their bodies, which was expensive in its own right not to mention the cost of the horses armour and each man-at-arms i.e knight had 2-3 horses on a long campaign

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more