WHAT! Medieval armor worse than wearing nothing?! REPLY to Weird History

[Music] greetings i'm chad and this is going to be another reply video uh specifically to the video from the youtube channel weird history entitled ways medieval armor was more dangerous than wearing nothing now if you're familiar at all with uh medieval history and armor you might react with some uh concern skepticism a front offense at such a title there is a an obvious kind of logic that debunks such a concept right away and if medieval armor did not protect you more than wearing nothing no one would have worn it now it's not to say it doesn't come with certain armor difficulties extra weight fatigue everything but overall history has proven that the benefits vastly outweigh any uh hindrance that the armor might provide and i'm talking about most types of medieval armor and the ones that were engineered made constructed to be more easily worn and so on now this actually isn't the first reply video i've done to uh weird history uh in fact this youtube channel is responsible for me launching my medieval misconceptions playlist the first video i did was actually a shadow response to theirs on it was called what life was like in medieval castles i didn't mention specifically it was that video because i it's not my intention to try and attack you know a youtube channel i do admit that uh my interaction with this channel hasn't encouraged me to watch more of their content for how much i've noticed them got getting wrong and this video now that i'm replying to only came onto the radar because someone sent it to me saying chad you might want to correct some of the the stuff here i have a philosophy that you know the the idea that when some people get some facts really wrong on a certain subject that they should take the video down or stop making content like i that i largely disagree with because i find it can be a springboard for people to learn the correct information for instance right now i wouldn't be making this reply video if they didn't make theirs and i'm not sure you know so we're going to be able to address some interesting information that maybe i never would have gotten to and the people who watch that video might not find their way to the correct information because it's a different audience and so as a result i do feel if we can respond to it correct the information it can still lead to a net benefit and i encourage them to keep trying to improve fix what they're doing it does seem though that when it comes to medieval subjects they have a bit of trouble on the matter so we shall dive right in going to take a look at several ways medieval armor was more dangerous than just wearing nothing so in all the um things that they bring up i i suspect that they're going to this gentleman or their crew that you know people that work behind this youtube channel i don't know how many people worked on the research or the script or anything they might be able to bring up certain ways in which armor could be a little bit constricting certain inherent problems but the context that all these problems are being raised in is not that armor can create certain difficulties it's that these difficulties were so significant that there were ways in which it was then worse than just wearing nothing at all that's the premise that's going by by the way this subject they're not the first ones to do this weird history uh metatron has done like a reply to some articles saying that uh armor was worse than wearing nothing as well uh so now i guess it's my turn addressing a different video but uh it's one of those more it's a misconception actually comes up more than just once there i i wonder if i don't know weird history does seem to be a type of chat just from what i've seen in terms of the videos i've addressed especially the uh life in medieval castle one they hear like these little factoids and jump on it because that's a bit weird and they perpetuate it and they over exaggerate it like medieval people are only drinking ale and they just didn't drink water which is utterly absurd well the medieval era ain't exactly their specialty they have a video here called what really happened behind the scenes of pimp my ride [Laughter] i wonder if this is one of the problems of when a information channel goes too broad and doesn't have the depth of research to specialize on a subject which is why they can get so much wrong because there's a lot of nuance in a lot of things that i'm going to be trying to clarify in what they say in this video about 1420 ce europeans have created the earliest full body suits of armor and by the 15th and 16th centuries every european army was built to create suits of armor 14 20 is the fifth century oh yeah he says that they had full things in 1420 and then by the fifth century and by the 15th and 16th centuries every europe so late at that same time period um and then he like he then he goes on to say suits of armor and by the 15th and 16th centuries every european army was built around plate armored soldiers every european hobby was built around plate armored soldiers and this is again about stating something so broadly and there's like no no no even from my cursor understanding of listening to you right the foot soldiers the common foot soldiers were more likely wearing gambeson and if they yeah like um steel was expensive it was expensive you're right uh and so and it's the idea that it's built around the concept of plate armor they didn't build armies around you know the plated armored individuals they built around strategy unit types formations and stuff and so the english were famous for their longbowmen and things and so if they're going to set up a battlefield they might build it around that strategy where the longbowmen in the center then you need infantry to back it up you might want cavalry to handle flanking things it's like saying the modern day military is based around tanks no it's not but there might be certain fields of warfare that um yeah and that uh the strategy is built around the implementation of tanks but like he says it so categorically he basically he said all european armies were built around played on he could have said played armor was employed to a vastly greater degree in the late 15th century and 16th century that would be a more accurate statement but it's poorly worded and gives the wrong idea the fullest sets of armor tended to be made for jousting rather than warfare that um that's not true at all either no it's not this area it depends what they say by fully they're all full suits of armor jousting armor was heavier and they had like pretty solid frog mouth helmets and things but they didn't cover more of the body than like a full suit of played armor around the 15th century these guys have 3.5 million subscribers yeah you know that castle video that's nearly everything in that video is wrong about what was life like in a medieval castle that has four million views my shadow response which i didn't i like this response to this channel i'm doing it now because it's like the second time but at least my response has a million views but um you can only do so much that was the glamour armor not always um yeah i mean you're on show uh you know i'd adjust but if you just had a good suit of armor that did the job effectively and that's all you could afford that's what used to perpetuate that every single suit of armor that was using jousting was glamour and stuff and is you know might not like at least the armor in this scene of game of thrones was a decent suit of decent enough suit of armor right so maybe i can give him pass for using a shot of a fantasy but honestly some of the historical movies that they also use clips on are probably worse than game of thrones for accuracy in terms of equipment and depiction of a medieval setting this period represented the height of full body plate armor being used in warfare the reason we associate knight gosh sorry he's got a he's got a uh the image from the last jewel with the half helmets music it's like oh sorry like as a historical kind of you know trying to share facts and stuff about things it's an atrocity to show a clip of that helmet as a depiction of what armour might have looked like in historical periods the president wearing half a bulletproof vest and showing you which half of them oh it's so so bad so it's funny how that was the very next clip that they use after i said that some of the depictions in historical you know based films are worse than game of thrones i never saw anyone like that in game of thrones this is all i'm saying so dumb oh my goodness it's like we have to see the actor's face um but they need but in a jewel they're always going to wear helmets but we have to see the axe's face we'll compromise in half and no one or the other like as bad as wearing no helmet in going to warfare to me that's not as an atrocity as the half helmet thing the reason we associate knights with armor today has more to do with specialized jousting armor developed for tournaments in the 16th century what the hell what the freaking what was that i'm sorry like he's just like we associate knights and armor more because of the they he's basically implying that it really wore the main covering armor in jousting and on the battlefield and that's why we associate knights and armor but they wore plate armor and on the battlefield a lot quite a lot we have artistic evidence for it we have archaeological evidence for it like um oh my goodness i can't remember the exact battlefield maybe i'll bring it up but we found heaps of um early uh bringing types of brigandines on this battle site and uh oh my goodness wearing a blocky jousting suit wouldn't have made much sense in a battle so yeah adjusting armor could be significantly heavier than the plate full plate that was worn on the battlefield but remember what he said previously is that um let me rewind it the fullest sets of armor tended to be made for jousting he said the fullest sets of armor tended to be made for jousting no there were sets of armor that encased the whole body uh for the battlefield as well what the misconception of perpetuating here is that wearing a full suit of armor that covered most of the body would be too bulky and blocky to wear on the battlefield that's the actual implication of these statements which is utterly wrong if they were heaviest yesting but they're not talking they didn't even say jousting armor was heavy he's talking about the misconception or belief that justin armour covered more fully the body but no medieval battlefield armor also fully covered the body and you know in many instances not everyone of course there were different levels different combinations because your movement and vision would be extremely limited because your movement and vision would be extremely limited again remember the context of these statements is not referring to weight here there's they're playing on the misconception that they cover most of the body and then the extra he has extrapolated that to mean you wouldn't be able to move very well and you wouldn't be out of c very well and because of that the battlefield sets of armour did not cover most of the it's which is wrong it's just utterly wrong jousting suit wouldn't have made much sense in a battle because your movement and vision would be extremely limited but it worked fine for a skirmish against your fellow knights what is he trying to like interpreting what he's saying here is that full suits of armor worked fine in skirmishes but not on actual in the in a battlefield that's essentially what he's saying which is also wrong but while a plate metal body suit would shield soldiers from many types of battlefield damage it far from made them invincible and created many more problems than it solved okay okay okay you are you're on the right way and then you just went off rails all right is uh so the first part yeah it didn't make you fully invincible that's true but then that it could create vastly more problems than it solved is utter bullcrap creon created many more problems just not more many more like the vast majority it just caused more problems than it solved then why were they wearing it this video creates problems [Laughter] you could race alive from the heat oh boy oh boy many of the combatants were fighting each other in the desert while wearing heavy metal suits at this point you may be thinking something like hey won't applying intense heat to a metal container just cook whatever's inside it good question cook cook whatever's inside it at least i'd have to bring pots cook whatever's inside it so okay okay and the answer is yes soldiers were literally baked inside their armor they said literally can we just play a game called common sense but let's just let's just try and throw this out there if i am a knight and my armor is getting so hot that it will bake me alive what would i do die or take the armor off just throwing that out there people would just die here obviously no they're taking people who are not i don't know shad knights and their dress code you know chivalry like and they were stylish thought people got heat stroke wearing armor and many eventually perished from heat exhaustion oh yeah sorry and many apparently yes they perish from heat exhaustion but he before he literally said they literally got back alive see i use the correct form of literally when referring to what the the narrator said because that's what he literally said because literally means literally wait really yes literally literally means literally they discovered ways to get around the heat some took their armor off entirely when it became too warm some some all right i'm glad there's some new ones being added but there's all right will he clarify that those who were not able to take off their armor did it because they were in a situation where they didn't have the opportunity not because they were so stupid that they was just like yeah just let myself die there will be another caveat to that that i'll also add sometimes you can suffer from dehydration heat stroke with actual not being aware of it that was obviously the most effective solution but could leave one vulnerable if fighting broke out others discovered that covering up armor with claw prevented direct sunlight from heating the metal up to the cooking point of course now they were wearing a heavy metal suit and a jacket in the blazing desert heat so that he he's implying that this is compounding and would make it worse when no the the circuits that they wore prevented the metal from heating up to the degree it could and so it wouldn't increase like a stacking layer and i'd actually keep it cooler than what it could reach not exactly the time to place the layer up or so he's basically saying here that it was dumb that they wore circuits over mail it's not the better place to layer up it's like no this was a good thing that they did it like it actively prevented the overheating up the level it could and because if if this was the case if it was more detrimental to layer like a circuit over on top of armor in heat like this no one would have done it this is like a modern person saying look at these it is layering it up in here i don't know what this where is hell man and the ends are there it's like but he's basically implying but they were stupid for layering it up because it's not always like i take my chances with heat stroke rather than i don't know an axe to the head yeah yeah i'm in the middle of about there's a big difference in heat stroke and being baked alive yeah yeah look is this just like casual use of language but he said literally that's where i'm maybe you didn't say literally i could have let him slide as just being hyperbolic but he's got his terminology wrong too you could get stabbed in between the plates therefore it was pointless mary day plated armor made a soldier about as close to invincible as they could ever get then read the title of the video yeah i know that's right how could he say that statement with the very premise of this video but in many ways it was more dangerous than wearing nothing near invincible were ways in ways worse than wearing nothing okay invincible as they could ever get sword slashes did absolutely nothing to it yeah in most cases um if you had a heavy enough sword right um and you got a really solid hit to the head there is a level of blonde force you could pass through it okay it needs to be a big weighty sword to do something like that but for the most part yeah sword slashers are pretty ineffective against um metal armor slashers could get through gambeson though but you know well that's the thing the the video title is just medieval armor is not medieval plate most of the things he's talking about is only in reference to steel armor oh sorry metal armor um and so again it's almost perpetuating that there were not other types of armor like cloth armor gamson's padded jacks and the like which meant fighters had to get very clever to get their cuts in the trick to defeating an opponent in plated armor was knowing that the armor didn't truly cover everything the trick not one of the tricks like again it's about being precise with your wording because this is implying this is the only way to get through heavy armor and is he gonna mention hammers yeah like blunt force like even even uh what he called the battle of ashen core they were overwhelmed by arrows even though they're wearing full plate armor we'll get to agincourt there's more nuance about that um because people look the arrows were decisive but they overplay it all right most of the french knights were actually defeated in melee after the arrow storm at point blank the arrows more so helped stall the charge well the boggy train that more helps stall the charge the arrows help take out the cavalry like horses a lot then take out a number of nights but there was a lot of hair like melee fighting after that that the archers jumped in on there as well but the um english uh knights on foot had a massive role like there was a big fight that happened um after the uh the use of the archery so yeah agincourt is a nuanced thing but going back to what i say like the other way to defeat people at animals is to hit them with something big and heavy and preferably in the head where like it doesn't matter how much armor you have on it if you can accelerate that skull enough where the brain ricochets on the inside of the skull doesn't matter what metal you hit first they will drop even a big enough stick a club yeah we've got art many of armored individuals being defeated by sticks stick good stick's very good so again like will they mention that so far they're only framing it in the context that the only way to defeat someone in armor was hidden in between the gaps it's like it's not not the only way there were gaps that one could exploit near the groin in the neck and under the armpits yeah those are all behind the knees as well and also just in between plates and under the armpits no he doesn't say isolates those places oh this is again what like a modern person's saying look how stupid these people they're such an obvious solution just put armor in the vulnerable plates yeah you think no one in the medieval period tried that or thought of that one of the reasons why you wouldn't it would prevent movements and sometimes guess what they did they had like like these really interesting inside pieces um that accompanied the shoulder piece that would enable you to bend your arm i actually don't know the name of the inside piece but i would usually accompany the elbow cop or cubitieri i think a bad pronunciation but that helped protect that there were openings but they did try and add things to protect those opening parts but the idea that this narrator is saying yeah just cover the whole thing well then they wouldn't be able to move look it up i think it's the courtuar and also they had um the bestigiew which are these round metal discs that uh would kind of stay in place when you raised your arm to help block strikes that went at the armpit now in later like really i you know this is henry v i believe had some armors that even had that folding uh like articulated sections that fully encase the under armpit and stuff but technology didn't develop to that point and so it's really annoying where someone from one mindset with more modern technology is like oh you could have just made something i was like they had their limitations of their time but they were aware of the weaknesses and they implemented ways to try and protect those parts but this just really feels like modern-day elitism is like look at this problem it could have been easily solved really go back into the medieval period with matt medieval technology and the resource they had available see what you could do given this particular weakness resourceful fighters would grapple their opponents and then try to stab at those weak points with daggers yep common way to defeat someone in amma was yeah uh to do that knock them because in some cases yeah armor was so protective most efficient way knocked them off their feet if you're the guy wearing the armor that would often mean taking a dagger in an extremely inopportune place like the neck the groin or even through the ice thank you he mentions isis turned out to be the one thing that was for sure was that it would be an exceptionally this site from the king i didn't like the king i liked the outlaw king the king had a lot of problems i have a review on the channel uh but at least this fight was d half decent it wasn't terrible uh the clip that is using here [Music] you expend twice the amount of energy to move around depends on the weight of armor but that doesn't mean no one would use it all right the benefits still vastly outweigh that outweigh the negatives like i say i'm wearing a metal briganding this is actual armor okay and i've moved around it it exhausts me a lot quicker in my experience is it twice as difficult i don't think it's twice maybe 30 percent the context is different these people trained their entire lives you're right you're right i there was actual you know depending on region and stuff we have accounts of saying a nitro train this much and everything be able to do this in armor obviously didn't apply universally but as an example of the standards that generally was expected of people being able to wear armor and some of the things that are being able to climb ladders run and you'd be a jump and other things like that and all from dark souls [Music] so you're right with intense physical conditioning and training it will get to the point where the armor did not impede you very much at all in combat you could maintain high levels of mobility and fight for extended periods of time before exhaustion because you would get really fit by constant training these guys were athletes they're not regular joes like me but you might be surprised by just how much mobility some of the good nights good thank you i can actually run and jump surprisingly well yes you can with legs thank you all right i'm glad that you said that plates were still an encumbrance while you did have a decent amount of mobility in a suit of armor that didn't mean you could just sprint around on the battlefield swinging your sword like a larper in a cardboard costume the necessity for sprinting doesn't happen as often as you might think but they certainly could okay and so if i don't know i was not essentially saying you're saying they couldn't sprint as much as a lapa but even that one there's nuance to be said i feel like floppers wouldn't be fit enough to sprint that's what i mean that's what i mean i like a lot of lapis they're not that fit some are real some some are athletes right but some are not and so yeah in fact a full suit of armor could weigh up to 100 pounds or more what jousting armor maybe so yeah average armor is between 45 and 55 pounds 20 to 25 kilos right that's lighter than the standard pack that an uh like a modern-day army soldier wears and the benefit is that medieval armor is distributed over the whole body it's not just resting on the waist or the shoulders and everything so these 20 to 25 kilos a lot of it is strapped to the legs and it's not just pulling down the shoulders and stuff and that's why they could maintain high mobility dousing armor could reach up to 50 kilos which is twice as heavy as standard you know battlefield armor or 20 to 25 kilos but he there's no distinction there he literally just says armor flat like listen costume in fact a full suit of armor could weigh up to 100 pounds or more or more or more that's a very broad no no like i can't believe this misconception is still being said by people this is not an old video there like it was made in february of 2022 this year right that's only a couple like a week or so old five days yeah five days right i'm just stunned that they still like oh my goodness who fact check this like you look it up let's look this up weights of armor i'm gonna just get a um medieval armor weight the google answer the very first top not even going to wikipedia gives you the correct answer full suit of armor weighed from 20-25 kilograms 45-55 pounds less than modern infantryman so less than a modern infantryman would carry an equipment they give you the right answer could they not even freaking google this oh my goodness that's that's pathetic i'm sorry that's really bad and they might say oh but armor could reach up to that either speaking in the context of a bat of the battlefield armor that you would wear and no battlefield armor did not go that heavy all right maybe that was the tiniest but not more standard broad 20 25 sometimes like this brigandine what i'm wearing it's not like 12 kilos all right um and so but oh where they talk about full suits of a full switch farmer trading 25 kilos and they don't just make the distinction that's not counting the rest of the typical gear a soldier might have to carry around with him like foreign that that clarifies that in the context of this video they're talking about battlefield armor not jousting a regular soldier with as you can imagine donning a bulky pile of metal to swing a smaller pointer piece of metal at your foes could get pretty tiring pretty quickly look you would tie a quicker wearing armor than not okay but for a conditioned you know trained person that i reckon like a medieval knight would be out of fight longer wearing armor way longer than i would be out of fight not wearing armor just wearing my normal clothes the the difference in fitness would be like striking it meant you often found yourself facing opponents who were potentially far less exhausted than you were hang on hang on hang on hang on it meant you often found often found yourself fighting opponents who are far less exhausted than yourself what utter bullcrap because the context you're saying here is that an armored person would often find themselves fighting less or no armored people who are less exhausted than themselves even though on a battlefield they would walk into to the engagement more often now one of the ways to defeat an arm opponent is to get them exhausted all right there are times when people just but even if two people wearing armor the the more fit person who doesn't get exhausted can win and just exhaust the other person the armor is not necessarily the key distinct distinguishing thing and on top of that even if you're a bit more exhausted because you're wearing armor and you're fighting a person who has a bit more energy okay that an engagement a combat engagement can happen really quickly between one to five exchanges of blows and if it's got a shield that can extend further especially if they're fighting defensively but if they're committed it'll it can happen really really quickly and because of that even if you're only slightly you know a bit more exhausted in the other person it'll happen really quickly and the advantage you have in your armor versus someone who is not as exhausted not wearing armor still gives you way more benefit than the exchange but there because of the context of this video they're implying that in some instances it's better not to wear the armor at all because you might be just a little bit more exhausted which means you'll lose no no no no the better for the armor still gives you a massive edge over someone not wearing armor who might not tire as quickly otherwise no one would have freaking worn armor hi then you were thanks to contemporary reenactors historians estimate that running in 15th century chainmail armor required twice the amount of energy than running without it look i haven't done the test i'm dubious of that uh specifically because modern-day re-enactors are different to uh medieval train warriors who are athletes and yeah so i'm very dubious about that statement honestly it's different materials different food different training different lifestyle it's completely different and i'm sorry there's a lot of i when i say a lot when i see reenactors most of reenactors regular joes who look they love the period everything like that but a lot of them most of them aren't athletes okay see a lot of them that are a bit overweight like me and so because then to try and make a baseline that oh they will tire just as quickly wearing like medieval armor comparing modern people to the ones trained for it it's it's a false is a false equivalence that's just wrong now of course you will tie a quicker wearing armor than not but there's so much more new ones into that discussion than you're saying yeah you'll die just as quickly like twice as quick picture trying to run an obstacle course with a full-size man writing on your back like yoda we don't need a picture that we can picture someone i'm what i get like there's a difference between just an average reenactor and people there's like uh i forget his name but there's a guy who actually trains in his armor he does rock climbing he rolls in it and he does and there's even a video of him doing an obstacle course right uh and so he actually is an athlete who's uh conditioned himself to wear his arm real effectively and so we don't need to picture yoda on obs of course we can watch this guy there's a there's a video of him in an obstacle course against a soldier wearing their full kit and a fireman wearing his full kit okay comparing the two he doesn't win but he beats one of the other guys he comes right in the middle uh the this guy wearing armor yeah and even then it's not on the back it's distributed almost exactly exactly and we have seen so we have seen that obstacle course and he performs really good that's kind of what fighting in a suit of armor was like nowhere was that more consequential than in the battle of agincourt the battle of agincourt was let's talk about the battle of fashion corps we in real life the french lost due to factors that were less than poetic and more logistical one okay yes those factors was the weather it had rained for two straight weeks beforehand turning the ground into a field of mud marching through that churned dirt and a hundred pounds of armor sapped a lot of the french troops strength before they even reached the fight well that doesn't two straight weeks beforehand the english weren't waiting on the field of agincourt for those two weeks they were marching too and the english were actually far more exhausted and weary from their whole uh you know they they landed in half law they see floor and then there was skirmishing it happened and maneuvering and a lot of these french troops were actually far more fresh than the english the english were suffering from dysentery and all this crap a lot of things went wrong for the english but referencing that it was raining for two weeks beforehand and that that particularly impacted the french more than the english not not to get there no no i disagree with that but in terms of its impact on the battle the the soggy now muddy ground it had an impact but people often misinterpret and get something really wrong with it and we'll see what he says marching through that churn to dirt in a hundred pounds of armor sapped a lot of the fret so when an army marches everyone's marching wearing all their armor that's what he's saying and and that if you had full plate you'd be marching in your full plate no no uh look sometimes i wear some of the armor they're cases where they would wear their armor but if you know that the engagement is happening right away you would travel not wearing your armor that's that anyway french troops strength before they even reached the fight while that doesn't make henry's speech any less inspiring the english had a bit more of an advantage than all hank led off lances and arrows could pierce even the strongest armor because arrows and lances had a chance to pierce certain types of armor armour could just be instantly defeated just use arrows and lancers it's like no armor could protect you especially well made the strongest of armor could protect you really well against arrow fight one of the deadliest weapons of medieval combat was the trusty old bow and arrow yes i agree depends on the type of bow but without needing to specify while it's true that armor could protect its wearer from arrows that hardly made you immune from them yes fair statement first and foremost distance was a huge factor good point of nuance to bring up good from a long distance arrows wouldn't do too much but at a closer range from a longer distance arrows wouldn't do too much due to again be specific too much against people wearing armor and that depends are the horses armored okay now conventional uh interpretations of the battle of addition core from uh multiple historians believe that the english shot more horizontally at closer range against uh the french cavalry i tend to feel that that interpretation go too far to say that longer volleys were you wouldn't some even say not use it all i think there's definite military wisdom and benefit in using longer range um arrow fire that's what i could that we even have examples of um of medieval history of warbows out ranging crossbows and so that meant they were shooting at range uh the battle of cressier i'm referencing in particular because there was one engagement valve of cressy where the french crossbowmen had went to engage the english and someone left all their previouses on the supply cards and they were distributed to the crosswoman and so they were just set onto the battlefield without their pa paverzy um as a the uh italian correct pronunciation as well but i'll just say palaces because i'm an uncultured english and i typically am we're in australia we're part of the crown it's not an honorary english isn't it prisoners okay okay but even their prisoners is technically you know come out of the comments anyway um i'll say parvis they didn't have it right and so these crossbowmen just were ordered ordered to just try and take on the english at a adventure elevation and so they had the um uh the long moment on this hill and the longbowmen specifically outranged the crossbowmen which meant range was an important factor and they did shoot at range you know in arrow warfare and you know when the crossroads started to retreat because they're just getting decimated because they couldn't hit the english but the english could hit them um one of the french leaders ordered the retreating crosswoman to be killed for cowardice the french made some really dumb moves in more like but ultimately they did win the hundred years war so they're like sometimes we can focus too much on the english victories in the hundred years war but the french had some very decisive victories in 100 years war as well but in terms of cressi and action core they goofed they were some big goofs and uh and yeah so anyway going back to the thing like of course archery was used at long ranges as well and we don't want the pendulum to swing too far to say that that was always horizontal at close range horizontal at close range gives you much higher chances for armor penetration and as i mentioned that's what we believe they did at agincourt but let's not exclude the other uses of longer range archery arrows designed to pierce armor could smash right through not always depends on the type of armor and the type of shots from a long distance arrows wouldn't do too much just they will never do do too much at a long distance tell that to the you know the unawares unit of troops that don't have their armor on or i don't have just arrows volleyed over on top of them that won't do much you'll be fine but at a closer range arrows designed to pierce armor could smash right i could not always the advent of the english longboat was an especially dangerous development he is a uh earth chattering reality to uh some people especially even medieval duties are unaware of this the longbow is not particularly high poundage than many other warbows of the period okay i look if you don't like that statement i've got a whole video explaining the depth and the reasons why and evidence and stuff there were short bows recurves that could reach as high poundage all right and the longbow the english didn't invent the longbow the longbow has been around for it's a very old weapon all right it's just a bow that's really big and long no british people invented the bow so everyone thinks that the english invented the longbow which they didn't and the longbow that they invented which they didn't was stronger than any other bow ever used no no the arrow could cut through anything what the english did which was not wholly unique to the english but in this period it's more represented by the english turned archery into a type of culture where they're able to train up a larger body of men that could handle high handle higher draw weight bows than other armies it's very likely that other armies had a couple of soldiers that could shoot the highest pounders we're talking between 150 pounds to even up to 200 pounds 200 pounds seems to be one of the the highest benchmarks very rare but that's one of the highest benchmarks that people could reach in shooting okay it's very likely that there were many people in the past who were going to war trained up got crazy good and could shoot warbows at that range having an army where the larger majority of people the men in it could shoot 120 pounds up right that's the exception and that's the big achievement of the english it was the arches not necessarily the bow the boho facilitated but when you needed a warbo like a really good solid powerful warbo one of the most affordable accessible one bows that you could build to reach those poundages was the longbow the longbow is basically the ak-47 of the medieval period it's not necessarily the best it's actually unique problems and detriments with the longbow yes shocking it's not the greatest bow in the world but in terms of affordability ease of access but and also our reliability consistently consistency it was a gr great bow it's actually one of the best in those ranges affordability consistency and reliability one of the best bows you can find in the warbow ranges in the high pounded ranges the longbow is great but it's not the most powerful bow and it's not the easiest to shoot or most accurate or anything like that it's actually problems with it people so many people misunderstand that and this video is just another one of those things it's the english longbow no there were other like you can get short posts as high poundage it was the english arches specifically that most of them could shoot such heavy poundages that's the key okay that's what gave them the edge and they achieved that by the culture of time you know like english men between ages were like 16 and i forget the higher end practicing archery on sundays but also they promoted it as the more honorable pastime like stopped doing frivolous things like other sports do archery the manly thing they promoted it and through that culture they were able to get large groups armies of just really good archers that could shoot high poundages that's how they could outrange it wasn't because of the bow they could have used other bows and achieve the same thing other other war bows of equal or higher poundage it was the arches that were the harder thing to get as it had stronger power and longer rain no it didn't so i guess that's a misconception short bows of equivalent poundage if their recurve will usually perform better than longbows of the same poundage you compare a hundred pound short boat recurve short bow to a hundred pound longbow the short bow will usually perform better and shoot faster if you want to know the reasons why there's actual reasons going into your engineering and the laws of physics reasons that i explain in this video that explain why okay it's just another perpetuating myth to say a longbow can shoot further and more powerful no it's wrong and by the way i freaking love the longbow all right but i want to understand the things i love and i'm not going to be a fanboy and just contribute too much things that are untrue to it all right we're overly dangerous development as it had structured and this thing is all like a current development like it was just invented that longbow didn't exist for thousands of years beforehand longer power and longer range those were over six feet long and in the right hands they were capable of killing a target 200 yards away they also drastically reduced reload time a skill drastically reduced reload time in the context that they're saying is like they're perpetuating the myth that this was a a recent development the english invented the longbow and because that they drastically reduced reload time it's like people couldn't shoot as fast with other bows of earlier times even though longboss existed earlier and they just couldn't shoot as fast longbowmen could fire half a dozen arrows in the same time a crossbowman could fire a single bolt yes i mean it depends sometimes they can shoot more sometimes actually less speaking of the cavalry a strategic cavalry charge could often be the deciding factor in a fight even against combatants decked out in full plate armor so i mean it depends about the cavalry charge like if your if the cavalry charge is charging a enemy formation that isn't too deep and there's a chance that the cavalry could break through the formation regroup and charge again yeah that could be devastating but if they charge into a large deeper unit formation and they just get surrounded by enemies i've just cut them to pieces cavalry charge can be the worst choice around one reason for this is that horses could deliver an incredibly powerful blow to virtually any defensive formation virtually no see i already clarify that it depends on the formation mate and also it depends on what they're using if they have spears pikes cavalry charge against that could be the worst thing ever i mean look at the the children that the scottish use right they use that to repel cavalry in many instances like a cavalry charge could be great against virtually any formation no it's just wrong but more pointedly the riders carried lances which were long poles within not always the ride is again specific specificity of language the riders carried lances which is implying all of them not always incredibly sharp metal tips especially designed to pierce armor and they were incredibly effective they could be incredibly effective but there was ways to counter them and just render them utterly useless the power of a galloping horse behind it the lance could punch a hole through robocop we would need to test that against robocop look lance has a good chance of punching through armor not always though to say it's always the case let alone any knights on the battlefield along with the lance other weapons designed to take advantage of the weak points and suits of armor included the long tapered sword alberts look long tapered sword wouldn't be your first pick for a battlefield weapon to combat armor his other choices are better like you know halberds yeah you couldn't see well so then first of all what type of helmet are you talking about i mean there's a lot of open-faced helmets okay if you had a sale without the bev or it still had a visor raise the visor you could see pretty darn well i mean there's lots of visited helmets that you could make that just lift up oh there's the enemy then lower it now with a full like face helmet yes it does restrict sight but let's see let's see if he clarifies that some helmets this wasn't an issue at all because they're proposing that because you couldn't see well this justifies the title of this video why medieval arm was more dangerous than wearing nothing the helmets that completed a suit of armor were incredibly adept at protecting one's head the helmets that completed a suit of armor were incredibly adept at protecting right and the pictures they show were full face helmets but you could wear a full suit of armor and not have a full face helmet like a sale without a bevel all right well what about a bar boot barbed is an awesome helmet i love that thing all right wider you know um place like you know opening for the eyes you can see much better you have kettle helmets okay as well i mean there are heaps of helmets unfortunately that protection came at the price of completely eliminating your peripheral vision they're just going on the assumption that the helmets that you'd wear with full plate armor always covered the eyes and then the ones that did cover the eyes like i mentioned before oftentimes advisors so you could raise it get better vision and then close it when you're going straight for the fight now look i'm not saying that uh full covering helmets didn't restrict your vision it did but they're saying it as an absolute universal on all played armor or just they're not even really specifying played are they good yeah sort of like how a diving mask lets you see underwater but only the sharks directly in front of you in the midst of combat it could be pretty easy to get taken out by an attacker creeping up behind you before you even knew they were there that could happen to people not wearing armor as well yeah um thing is though you're surrounded on all sides except in front of you by your comrades unless the lines are completely broken well let's see to those wearing the helmets this didn't happen too often due to the way military formation they yeah i mean okay because they're bringing up the i like vision problem as a reason to justify that armor was more dangerous than wearing nothing it's like saying at any moment you could be bitten by a shark luckily sharks mainly reside you're right that's actually a closer close because you could be stuck up and hit from behind except when you actually in a unit you formation which is the most case for most battlefields but when combatants got really mixed in with one another braveheart style a distinct possibility in any battle a soldier in armor so if it degenerated into a wild melee you get absolutely bushwhacked by someone just outside their limited field of vision yeah but i mean you could also be hit from behind if you're not wearing armor as well you can't see behind you armor or not and if there is someone behind you and this is like you could get absolutely bushwhacked by someone that he can't see question though would you have higher chances of surviving that bushwhack if you were wearing armor or not so clearly the exchange of benefit and detriment is vastly in favor of armor because it worked [Music] you could still be beaten to death so i oh wow if he just says like i was what they just wearing nothing because there were blows that could actually get through the armor and still kill you oh if he goes down that way if you don't wear armor you can't get beaten to death i guess these two the plate armor would protect you from most stabbing and slashing damage it could actually make it easier for your opponent to clobber you into the next world war hang on hang on wearing armor could make it easier for your opponent to clobber you into the next world that's the statement wow how are they gonna justify that that's [Music] bafflingly wrong someone tell iron man if he takes off his armor dude he'll be so much more powerful easier for your opponent to clobber you to the next world like if you get so we've already addressed the weight issue and is nowhere near as bad and if the armor is just decent armor how can it make it easier for someone to clobber you okay like is he gonna try and say i don't know vibrations can it this is wrong but this is like bullcrap science pseudoscience it was a a hit on an armor could make vibrations and reverberate which knocks you off your your center of balance or something like that the armor's vibrating then your skull isn't vibrating you're right you're absolutely right let's see what they say by increasing your chances of getting a concussion or okay so wearing armor can increase the chances of a concussion there's like it's saying wearing a helmet can increase the chances of getting a concussion or internal bleeding after sustaining a massive blow versus the head being completely caved in what i wish we could get your reaction nathan you're there having an aneurysm why do athletes wear helmets when playing football or sport or whatever and they're getting shoved to the ground this is amazingly dumb this is like this this video is really bad a statement like this how could because you don't even need to know a lot about medieval history to know this is so stupid this is common logic i can't believe this i'm not letting my kids use bicycle helmets in the future vibrations concussion increase concussion and what did what else they say chances of getting a concussion or internal bleeding or after sustaining a hemorrhagic increase internal bleeding armor can if any blow that strikes on the armor the power of that blow will be reduced significantly because of the armor that same blow hit against you to a person not wearing armor would likely be deadly in any there's no other case in which it wouldn't be more deadly the armor will reduce the damage you receive you can get damage through armor but the fact the armor was there it will reduce the damage massively there's no world in which it would increase the damage that's what they're saying they would increase concussion and internal bleeding blow weapons like maces and hammers took advantage of the fact that steel could dent and cave into its wearer no i can testify to this shot when i was a kid i was hit many times in the skull with a hammer and i'm fine i wasn't wearing armor then so no they're using the logic that armour could cave into a wound and keep a wound open therefore it made the wound worse imagine what that wound would have been like if the armor wasn't there at all if that blow was strong enough to dent armor you're not going to have a head if you received it without it without the armor i'm talking about this logic is so stupid i can't believe it their logic is that armor might cave in and keep a wound open therefore making the wound worse come like i'll repeat it they're completely ignoring the reality of what that wound would be like from that same blow if they weren't wearing the armor at all i think a weapon like maybe an arrow that hits hard enough or a ballista shot you know that would keep the wound open more than the armor that it went through oh this is this is bafflingly stupid like just logically you don't need to know armor to know this is dumb who wrote this i'm so look um we we in history the youtube channel i'm not trying to attack you personally but who just slow down and think about what you're saying here it's like they had a premise uh like this weird idea that hey it might be more dangerous wearing them and never just look for any possible reason to justify it to get a clickbaity title right and they're willing to it's like they're not actually thinking about the statements they look for any vein of logic that has some weird through line hey dented armor could help keep a wound open and then they don't complete the thought process to figure out what that really means and they just go with and throw it out there and say haha you see it could be more dangerous than wearing nothing yeah but the armor itself drastically increases the chance a wound won't be made deadly yeah by a massive amount yeah like and seriously as i mentioned before the force that would have taken to didn't the armor to keep a wound open and therefore like all the reasons they give the power behind that strike would instantly kill the person if they weren't wearing that armor it's so dumb obviously teeing off a foes head with a heavy blunt weapon could still do plenty of damage yes they were wearing a helmet but if swung with enough force a hammer could actually damage a chest plate enough to break bones cause internal bleeding or damage a chest plate enough to break bones so you're saying that hammer strike wouldn't have broken the bones if the armor wasn't there it'd be completely fine i can't believe it he's saying like they could damage the chest plate enough that'll cave in and then it's really the chest plates of breaking your bone not the hammer strike and you the bones wouldn't break if you weren't wearing the armor yeah this is why the spartans and beowulf both fought naked because that nothing could hit them people keep calling even stop someone's heart the trick is having enough strength to make the blow count but when you're talking about professional soldiers with the medieval era that kind of strength wasn't all that un all right the clip they're using and i think that's from like medi it's a it's a dinner theater show called medieval times or something like that um he's he's not being serious don't use it in like a nice a strong clip thing anyway soldiers of the medievalera that kind of strength wasn't all that unusual that the kind of strength to uh hang on i needed a larger context here damage even if they were wearing a helmet but if swung with enough force a hammer could actually damage a chest plate enough to break bones a hammer could damage your chest plate enough the statement is already just so dumb for the reasons we mentioned that same hammer strike would break the bones vastly more if the chest plate wasn't there but he now he's going to go on to say that the strength require like first of all it'd be really rare to cave in a breastplate with a one-handed warhammer that's you like there's a great scene in fantasy book but great scene it's in um second second way uh stormlight archives book it's way of king's words of radiance so where's radiance what's the scene exactly here's a character it's a it's a flashback with dalaina and there's a scene where one character knocks down an opponent he's wearing a breastplate and uses a a poleaxe to cave in the breastplate while the guy's on the ground it's a good scene because he's wearing shot plate no no no it's normal steel armor it's a good scene because with the ground like stopping it you know because if you get hit in the chest your own movement will absorb away a lot of that uh force but if there's something stopping you from moving behind that sandwiches it and you can there's a higher chance of caving it in but you need something with a lot of leverage two-year-handed so something like a polax could do it and that's a perfect situation to demonstrate when a breastplate could get caved in but if they're standing up with a one-handed warhammer unless the breastplate is made of like tin plated dirt right you're not gonna cave it in with a one-handed warhammer it's just not gonna and but they're gonna justify and say medieval knights were commonly strong enough to do that no no no by the way i should give credit to the lion tin plated dirt it's from awesome scott card in his um pathfinder novel series uh but there's a a character talking about um i think it was his brother or someone dying and uh he got hit through the chess play and i it stood out to me because i was like mr card are you getting this wrong and then it came up as like that shouldn't really be able to do that but if it was made of you know tin plated dirt and basically someone cheated and sold them crap armor and and i was like such a good line tin plated dirt i was like i remember it and i've used it multiple times in many different videos but i should give credit that's that's from awesome scott card great author and um anyway so listen he's going to say notes could do that because they were just strong cause internal bleeding or even stop someone's heart the trick is having enough strength to make the blow count so having enough strength meaning having enough strength to cave in armor basically but when you're talking about professional soldiers of the medieval era that kind of strength wasn't all that unusual so they're all just superhumans i mean look they're athletes all right but in term if you compare modern day athlete to modern day medieval or supportive effort to medieval athlete they're going to be like they're not they're not super humans but and in actual fact because of diet and other restrictions are a bit shorter than modern people as well uh it's more likely that they wouldn't be stronger than modern people with better food better medical technology better training equipment and stuff we do again of course a medieval athlete would vastly outperform a regular person especially in armor when they train for that armor and type of combat but if you compare likes alike but he also says that this they have it was not uncommon for them to have the strength to break through tempered steel plate yet dude their arm was too heavy for them to move around for so long it's too heavy you know there's contradictions in this guns ended the era of the suit of armor well that's just wrong as a statement they didn't but let's see if let's see if he clarifies it by the 17th century suits of armor were on the decline while they remained common among the nobility common among them during the european wars of religion by the start of the 18th century the once glorified suit of armor had basically been reduced to a chest plate mostly correct okay like yeah um the breastplate's still around so to say armor was phased out that would be wrong but he at least he clarifies and says there were types of armor still in use yeah but that's the thing we still wear armor to this day yeah we do and also um the technically firearms in european conflict were invented in the 15 in the well 16th century 1500s uh there were no there were even um types of firearms in the 14th century there you go so that's still a 400 year sorry 300 year game yeah and then to the modern day just change different materials and techniques that were earlier more primitive but gunpowder weaponry has been around since the medieval period yeah why well the short answer is guns the wide proliferation of flintlock muskets which could easily penetrate armor at a great distance eventually made plate armor all but obsolete look made plate armor all but absolutely i think that's a fair enough statement there's a there's a comment down below where someone mentions the term bulletproof comes from when um uh blacksmiths would actually shoot their chest plates and a dent in it yeah proof that this was a there was a mark like a proofing test to show that this breastplate could resist a bullet hence bulletproof um so yeah i got armor and gunfire coexisted in battle for a decent time and technically if you one of types of armor has existed even to the modern day so napoleon's cavalry experimented with forms of chest plate armor and it even made a brief but mostly ineffectual reappearance during the us civil war soldiers in world war ii wore flat jacks okay at least they showed some examples of light armor explosive weapon though they weren't typically effective against bullets fired from rifles and handguns so what do you think you have enjoyed being tonight and shining let us watch this video and find out wow um all right uh weird history this video was very poor there was a a lot of misinformation errors in it like 90 percent of it it seemed to me like at least 99 was just utterly incorrect or out of context or spreading something so look i want you to keep making videos hopefully you will improve and stuff this isn't the first time though we've had to visit one of their videos and i am reluctant to make reply videos but weird history has 3.57 million subscribers so this isn't me punching down i'm like and also they're doing videos every single day and from the looks of that they're not really exactly excited this looks i don't know they found like a poorly researched internet article that they didn't even double check with basic googling like you know a lot of this you could have fixed with that the first result in a google search yeah there's more nuanced stuff like you wouldn't find information on um uh the actual significance of the longbow and uh but then there's just the unless you watch my videos oh like and subscribe when they're getting when they say yeah they've hit in the head with the hammer can give you a concussion more than when they're like that was bafflingly dumb i don't like that's that's not google search that's just common sense like logic just think about it how could they say something so wrong and so blatantly dumb on the face of it like again i think they weren't qualifying or double checking these statements they were just looking for any logic that could justify the premise of the video and they wanted a clickbaity video you just think about that for two seconds and it makes no sense let's quickly read some of these comments um let's see i like how because my i don't have the i'm using my laptop i don't have my like to dislike ratio on i don't know what the dislikes last time i checked out indigo's group um i don't think there was a lot of hey modern history tv is here jason kingsley love you mate i i love it he actually appears often in comment sections maybe he'll appear in this one but he says he's so nice and polite he doesn't like her but he he would be he would have watched this and just thought oh wow there's a lot of things wrong here but some interesting observations here that i i love you jason that's his nice way of saying this is a dumpster i look maybe it's i don't want to put words in your mouth jason but some interesting observations here but very generalized and simplified yes nice way to put it i would go probably further than that shay many of the images are from tv and movies which almost always get things very very wrong it's great to see um jason there uh yeah so the it's got 5 800 likes 239 dislikes so it's not ratio no like that means the audience isn't aware um a lot of these things but i wonder if some of the commenters are oh look there are several myths perpetuated by this several there's a lot uh first while of course knights would expend more energy and armor they had endurance training specifically yep same point that we raised that comment i'm surprised by all left out the use of armor in world war one um so uh not too many people i all there sounds like guns ended the era of suits of armor clearly the 19th century bushranger ned kelly didn't receive that notification that's yes that's an australian technically he held up for that one but also right someone commented um so your point is that armor wasn't completely perfect and flawless so therefore it was better to just wear nothing there's a smartphone that's the logic though and it's ridiculous on the face of it and i'm glad someone pointed it out you got a lot of things wrong in this video you are correct sir check this comment out i would love to see the reaction of the youtube medieval experts of this video like scholarly metatron and shadowversity you got your wish sir those yes sorry this one okay yeah what's the call what a crock of so many myths in this video this is very true um so at the moment weird history does not get my endorsement or recommendation this is the second video we've had to visit with them it seems like one of those uh pop history channels i've been accused of being a pop history channel and look i get things wrong but one of the reasons that prompted me to start my medieval misconceptions things like i said was a video from weird history right because i was reluctant to dive into historical subjects just informational historical subjects on the channel because there's so much left i have to learn about it and i wanted to really only touch on subjects where i felt my knowledge and research had really completed itself and and uh um and that would look but then i realized that would probably take a lifetime and then i watched um that video on castle's life in medieval castle from weird history and i realized wow i i know enough to see that most of the stuff they said are absolutely wrong and so even though i'm not perfect i think i could do a much better job than what a lot of stuff that's being put out there and that's what kicked off my medieval misconceptions series and i i'm still in that style i got i'm not perfect i get things wrong but at least i know enough to be able to correct a lot of this type of stuff and i feel that makes a bit of a distinction between myself and these kind of pop history channels that they just it feels like they want content they don't fact check double check things they just spit it out there and unfortunately well as i mentioned i don't want to stop because hopefully this would just be a springboard to people finding my channel other you know channels that really like to go into the deep nuance like like modern history tv metatron scholar gladiatoria and there's so many great ones sorry if i missed one of you guys you're great and uh gets the more complete picture and information on the subject and so anyway that i hope you've enjoyed guys um just wanted to clear up some of those mistakes and uh uh i've already said it like i i feel mean when i it feels like i'm attacking them but they did get so much wrong and so it's like i'm sorry but i'm not sorry still glad you're making content hope you'll improve um because uh medical purity is great other all but they don't just cover the middle period so it doesn't make me cautious about the other videos anyway there we go guys um i've been a little while since we've made a reply but it was fun thank you for joining i hope you have enjoyed and of course hope to see you on the next video so until that time [Music] do [Music] you

Channel: Shadiversity

Views: 740,821

Keywords:

Id: oB4sIeFsvTQ

Length: 73min 8sec (4388 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 02 2022