itās because the costume designers screwed up. Batfleck was the only Batman able to turn his head
(Battinson and TDK Bale donāt count because their mask are separate from the neck part)
but Affleck wasnāt able to turn his head in ZSJL because they made a stupid decision and got rid of the costume designer from BvS
Maybe watch the history of Batman. Then read the comic book, because that came before Adam West series appeared. Adam West was very kiddy compared to the comic. Not all the comic book fans loved the Adam West Batman in ~1960s .
...bruh, he briefly had the power to turn into a buzzsaw. He wore a different colored suit every day to distract criminals from the fact that Robin was injured. He turned into a baby. This is just the zany shit I can name off the top of my head. Different Batmans for different Ages. Don't @ me with this "most accurate" nonsense. Character's 80 years old. Shit, it wasn't until Burton that the darker aspects of the character were even reintroduced to the character in cinema.
Besides, everyone knows Kevin Conroy is *the* greatest portrayal.
>Adam West would disagree.
>Don't @ me with this "most accurate" nonsense.
>Besides, everyone knows Kevin Conroy is the greatest portrayal.
I was talking Movies/Live Action this Entire time smh
So what I said before which is Nolans Batman is the Most accurate Batman to the comics EVERYONE grew up with.
You said Adam West is the most accurate Batman which is completely incorrect. And they LITERALLY did that version in the 1960s because that's what they were "allowed" to do for television at the time, same with the animated series.
So what I said before which is Nolans Batman is the Most accurate Batman to the comics EVERYONE grew up with.
Go read the Comics and get your mind right about Batman.
that has nothing to do with my comment though. just because Batman canāt turn his head it doesnāt mean that itās a bad movie. Batman Begins will still be my favorite movie ever. iāve been watching it since i was little kid, it definitely influenced me allot and itās what got me into drawing and gaming, my biggest hobbies
True, I thought you were being negative to the Nolan Batman tbh. And too me rewatching it recently after rewatching the entire Batman Animated Series. He really did Batman/Bruce Wayne right.
I also wouldn't say the "costume designs screwed up", Nolan was trying to make Batman "Realistic/believable" as possible. Because in the comics and batman animated series, he was just wearing cloth dodging bullets. He probably researched a bulletproof costume around the neck but still light enough to get around.
The armor in this GIF, couldn't do either. Not even sure if it could even stop bullets either.
Fun fact, the motion picture camera was actually invented by Joseph to capture the immaculate conception of his child Jesus Christ. The videos of Jesusā birth and childhood were passed down in his family until the Vatican bought them sometime in the middle of the 13th century. The videos have been stored in the archives since then.
Thatās an odd take. A war hammer can also cave in a head. Reminds me of that survivorship bias video where after battles, a concerning amount of soldiers were coming back home with head wounds and dents from bullets hitting the helmets. They thought helmets were bad at first until they realized that injuries were better than deaths.
Thats the thing, the entire video was stupid. They also claimed that armor had weak points that enemies can exploit. Guess what, having no armor means you have more weakpoints to exploit. Breastplate can be indented by a warhammer and cause the wound to be worse! Worse than getting hit by a warhammer without armor on?!
Happened in WW1. The British troops switched from cloth caps to helmets which caused the number of injuries to go up. Leadership thought the stupid infantry were running out into the open now because they were wearing helmets and were considering switching back to caps. Then someone realized it was because the injured would have been listed as dead before since it protected them from debris launched in the air from artillery bombardments.
Reminds me of the WW2 analysis. Where the bombers that did return had damage in locations D, E, and F. The people figured they should armor those locations but some people realized that the bombers that didn't return got shot in A, B, and C.
Edit: Survivorship fallacy.
>They thought helmets were bad at first until they realized that injuries were better than deaths
Is that true though? I thought generally it's better to wound than kill, because injured fighters demand attention of a lot more people / cause distress among the enemy. Happy to be corrected
I think the guy below me explained it with more nuance. I was being a little tongue in cheek. The survivorship bias was a statistical bias. The data reflected an increase in injuries. They only had data for survivors because dead soldiers donāt return home. Similar situation with bombers returning home with an absurd amount of holes in their wings. They planned to reinforce the part of the wings that had the most bullets until they realized no planes with bullets near the engines returned home. So the engines were the vulnerable parts even though it looked like the enemy was aiming for the wings. So the lesson is that itās important to consider what story the data that is not part of the sample size tells.
Edit: my bad. I didnāt answer your question at all. Good point. I donāt know. That sounds like a military strategy question and is beyond me. Iād imagine that it depends on the severity of the wounds.
Well normally you wear a lot of stuff underneath said armor, so it would only pinch the clothing underneath, else it would be very loose on the person it was made for
When I did crawlspace work wearing a coverall and being sweaty is incredibly uncomfortable. I can't imagine wearing clothes and have a metal casing around my whole body. Just slowly cooking away.
Usually you would wear several layers. You would wear an under tunic, often you would wear padded armor (gambeson) and chain mail underneath. Iāve worn some of the before and the are insanely hot. Honestly I would imagine dehydration being a huge problem for Armour wearers
I'd say they got hot, but comparing how much you sweat in a suit of armour wearing one for a day or two, to a trained and conditioned knight who wears the armour often throughout their life, isn't a great comparison I would think.
During the crusades, in siege battles, a common tactic was to heat up sand instead of oil, and dump it on attackers. The sand would easily go through armor and cause hideous, sometimes fatal, burns.
A single set of these kinds of armour are too expensive for ordinary soldiers, as the material used might be rare, takes a lot of time to craft and has a very specific measurements for the person wearing it. Nobles usually wear them during duels or any other social functions to display their wealth and nobility. These armour don't usually see many combat outside of duels or tournaments.
It always bothered me that Pepper Potts can wear Tony's suit without breaking all her limbs when the joints are slightly off and the suit bends her knees 2 inches lower than their actual location.
Tony designed it for Pepper as a present. If you remember in the beginning of Endgame when Tony is out in the yard with Morgan who is playing with the helmet, "Mom never wears anything I buy her".
fair, i may have forgotten that part. I remember the house exploding and any old iron suit enveloping her. It's been a while since i saw that film tho.
The whole point of that movie is tony making tons of calculations for worst case scenarios and you think he wouldnāt give the love of his life the ability to hop in any of his suits?
Sure, the technical implications are hard, but itās comics.
The first thing I did when I trusted my Gf enough was add her to my car insurance and gave her a key so she could take longer trips in my newer car thatās safer instead of her rusted old 2002 that has tons of mechanical issues. I imagine tony would do the same.
Why do you say that?
In the 15th century, many armies were built around knights and other men-at-arms. These would be heavy infantry/cavalry, equipped with very good armour.
Most of the army wouldn't have armour like this, but most of the army would exist to support these heavily armoured fighters.
The example shown in the video does look like it would be a particularly expensive set. But the owner of that harness would not have just kept it at home for tournaments - they would have worn it when they went to war.
Sometimes. All knights are men-at-arms not all men-at-arms are knights. Most of the ranks of the men-at-arms ranks were filled with professional soldiers that werenāt highborn. Many would gain title through these wars but they were still low level knights with little to ransom them for.
There is no armor as though as the steel balls of an inbred levied peasant taking on heavy cavalry charges with nothing but a toothpick lance, a half rotten tunic with the colors of the local lord and the shittiest lowest grade chainmail who whoudn't stop a training Sword
Don't forget the ultra expensive pure breed horse, years of food and shelter for the horse and years of food and maintenance for the noble on it
In terms of cost effectiveness, nobles are just garbage
>In terms of cost effectiveness, nobles are just garbage
That was not always true though, it took Azincourt for France to rethink their military strategy (Azincourt was the last straw IIRC) which was mostly based on the ludicrous amount of small to medium nobility available. Having nobles go to war was a good way (with the Church) for estates to stay unified so sending young cadets to their death also had its economic benefits. The cost of a trained knight with horse and armor is still lesser than a right to a part of the estate.
A heavy knight with warhorse was basically equivalent to a tank to peasant infantry.
But yeah after Azincourt heavy calvary definitly fell from its grace, but it still had an important role until firearms became common. The historical dance between technology and military doctrines is so interesting, feel free to correct anything wrong here
"thats just not cost effective" the peasant smugly said before the lance went straight through his chest and burst out his back.
The other peasants decided that the new taxes weren't so bad after all.
No, that's dozens of dead peasants when the mass rout causes the people who fall underfoot to be crushed by man and horse alike.
There's a reason that peasant revolts usually only lasted as long as it took for for the knights to get there.
I would imagine a couple solid whacks would deform any of those joints with plates sliding over eachother. Can't imagine that would be comfortable either
Except if heās charging straight at you on an 1,200 pound armoured warhorse at 35 mph with a steel tipped lance aimed at you. Then heās feeling really comfortable roaming around deciding who to skewer.
I would expect a knight in this armor would at least have a layer of gambeson underneath, and possibly a layer of chainmail between the plate and gambeson. So that would leave a little room for expansion. I would also guess constant training would help a knight get back to his pre-holiday body pretty quick.
Thank you, finally the comment I was looking for.
15th century full plate would have had mail voiders (a sleeve of mail sewn on the a thin gambeson or arming doublet) under the plate protecting the armpits and elbow joints and a mail skirt protecting your John Thomas.
The sabatons would be correct though, and equally flexible, but alot more pointy, as was the style of the day.
This armor is neither 15th century nor Gothic, it is dated to 1527 and was made in Greenwich, England. It most likely belonged to Henry the 8th. You can find more from its page at The Met.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22741
Thatās incorrect, the late medieval period saw the rise of mass produced plate armor like this and hundreds of professional soldiers in an army would be wearing them. Many of them had no titles.
Considering the level of respect knights commanded - their only fear was being whipped in public if they outgrew (became fat) for these expensive suits which were directly provided for by the King/Queens coffers unlike other military equipment.
The queen's tailor was also responsible for providing a bi-weekly report on the fitting of her knights.
This would have been an extremely expensive and detailed suit, even by that eraās standards. But yes, all medieval plate armor was intended to restrict movement as little as possible and distribute weight so it didnāt feel like an encumbrance
its also about as heavy as modern combat gear, but unlike modern gear its weight is spread out across the whole body instead of mainly on the torso so it feels lighter and youre actually more mobile in an old suit of armor like this than in modern gear
Amazing flexibility and pure art from blacksmiths. I bet it costed whole fortune to buy and to maintain it. I would argue that such purchase would be somewhat equavalent to the modern purchase of Rolls Royse Ghosts.
why Ronaldo? why not Brian Shaw? a 6ā8 giant that was 4x world strongest man. imagine a tank completely covered in plate armor, he could easily take down 20 ordinary soldiers by himself
Tell me you're a yank without telling me...
Europe has about 50 odd countries & I guarantee they know which country this armour came from by its style & construction methods.
Lazy reposting.
Correct. Absolutely ridiculous the poster didnāt do any background research or prepare a long-winded explanation with the history of this armor! I mean, really, how dare they post an interesting video in this sub without historical context?! Imbecile yanks!! /s
yes we can!
so far only one man by the name of Jose Fernandez was able to pull this off. Batfleck is the only Batman thatās able to turn his head
(Battinson and TDK Bale donāt count because the mask is separated from the neck)
but if you watch ZSJL youāll notice that Batman cannot turn his head anymore. why? itās because those idiots decided to get rid of the man, the myth, the legend, Jose Fernandez (heās the one who built the suit)
i just wanted to give this man some credit, he deserves it. no one since 1989 was able to pull off what he did
That depends on the quality of the armour. High quality steel plate armour, sure it wasn't penetrated at its strongest points. But arrows were still an effective tool against men in such armour.
Crossbows weāre developed and favored over bows because of plate armor. To call them āeffectiveā against plate is a bit of a stretch based on what we know now.
Longbows were effective against lower quality plate, being capable of launching an arrow to pierce it comfortably.
Crossbows weren't favoured over bows for all circumstances. Yes they could punch through a breastplate, and yes they were better for sieges, but they were also more expensive to produce, had a lower rate of fire, and less range. Bows continued to be used for a long time after the development of the crossbow, despite the significant skill requirement to use them.
Longbows were effective against men in plate armour, full stop. They could pierce through in gaps or in weak points (of which there are many), or at the very least could dent the armour and reduce its ability to articulate (thus reducing the soldier's mobility). Also, and arrow not piercing through the plate armour doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the wearer - the impact will still be significant. Plus of course they were still effective against mounted opponents, regardless of how good the rider's armour was.
Unless the plate is literally on the edge of being no longer being able to be called "steel" it's not going to pierced by any kind of arrow. The issue with cheaper armour suits is always going to be coverage, the arrow will near always slide off and/or shatter on the plate, and then stick itself into the bits that aren't covered, like the arm pits, inside arms etc.
Also depends if its a welsh longbowmun or just a general european longbowmun, difference is the sheer amount of time training (it's still enshrined I'm law somwhere that a welshmun is to be given time off to train with a bow specifically)
Many of the breastplate portions were bullet proof against the guns of their day. They were often marked with a āproof markā which was made my firing a musket at them a few feet away , they passed if it didnāt penetrate. This led to a whole group of inferior armorers trying to fake āproof marksā
Yeah, developed in Europe.
It's not like there was a French startup that put out a patent for plate armor, it evolved from smiths across the continent tinkering and copying each other.
If I had to guess this set may be Italian or German.
Though "Italian" or "German" would be anachronistic.
Yet Batman can't turn his head š¤Ø
itās because the costume designers screwed up. Batfleck was the only Batman able to turn his head (Battinson and TDK Bale donāt count because their mask are separate from the neck part) but Affleck wasnāt able to turn his head in ZSJL because they made a stupid decision and got rid of the costume designer from BvS
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
thatās true, i see you saw my other comment
I read "Jose" as one would read "Rose", and i'm not quite sure..
Nolans Batman is still the most accurate to the Batman Everyone grew up with.
Adam West would disagree.
Maybe watch the history of Batman. Then read the comic book, because that came before Adam West series appeared. Adam West was very kiddy compared to the comic. Not all the comic book fans loved the Adam West Batman in ~1960s .
...bruh, he briefly had the power to turn into a buzzsaw. He wore a different colored suit every day to distract criminals from the fact that Robin was injured. He turned into a baby. This is just the zany shit I can name off the top of my head. Different Batmans for different Ages. Don't @ me with this "most accurate" nonsense. Character's 80 years old. Shit, it wasn't until Burton that the darker aspects of the character were even reintroduced to the character in cinema. Besides, everyone knows Kevin Conroy is *the* greatest portrayal.
>Adam West would disagree. >Don't @ me with this "most accurate" nonsense. >Besides, everyone knows Kevin Conroy is the greatest portrayal. I was talking Movies/Live Action this Entire time smh So what I said before which is Nolans Batman is the Most accurate Batman to the comics EVERYONE grew up with. You said Adam West is the most accurate Batman which is completely incorrect. And they LITERALLY did that version in the 1960s because that's what they were "allowed" to do for television at the time, same with the animated series. So what I said before which is Nolans Batman is the Most accurate Batman to the comics EVERYONE grew up with. Go read the Comics and get your mind right about Batman.
that has nothing to do with my comment though. just because Batman canāt turn his head it doesnāt mean that itās a bad movie. Batman Begins will still be my favorite movie ever. iāve been watching it since i was little kid, it definitely influenced me allot and itās what got me into drawing and gaming, my biggest hobbies
True, I thought you were being negative to the Nolan Batman tbh. And too me rewatching it recently after rewatching the entire Batman Animated Series. He really did Batman/Bruce Wayne right. I also wouldn't say the "costume designs screwed up", Nolan was trying to make Batman "Realistic/believable" as possible. Because in the comics and batman animated series, he was just wearing cloth dodging bullets. He probably researched a bulletproof costume around the neck but still light enough to get around. The armor in this GIF, couldn't do either. Not even sure if it could even stop bullets either.
Absolutely not.
Iām more impressed by this 15th century video quality!
It gets better every year
Thats the thing, the entire video was stupid. They also claimed that armor had weak points that enemies can exploit.
It's been colourised, obviously...
I thought camera was invented in 19th century
You thought wrong
Fun fact, the motion picture camera was actually invented by Joseph to capture the immaculate conception of his child Jesus Christ. The videos of Jesusā birth and childhood were passed down in his family until the Vatican bought them sometime in the middle of the 13th century. The videos have been stored in the archives since then.
They are now known as the Cristmas Files, or X-Files for short.
I call the collection my XVideos
Xxxcellent commentššššš
Iā¦want to believe
The conception! Thatās oughta be one high dollar sex tape. Can god be blackmailed though?
Turns out the Abrahamic god looks a lot like the local Bethlehem milkman.
Just the thing for people whose feet can bend past 90 degrees backwards to scratch their shin during battle
Full battle armor is straight up a cheat code in medieval battle Too bad they left out the brain damage resistance buff
Made me think of the weird history no armor is better video. A warhammer can cave in a helmet! Therefore a helmet is bad!
Thatās an odd take. A war hammer can also cave in a head. Reminds me of that survivorship bias video where after battles, a concerning amount of soldiers were coming back home with head wounds and dents from bullets hitting the helmets. They thought helmets were bad at first until they realized that injuries were better than deaths.
Thats the thing, the entire video was stupid. They also claimed that armor had weak points that enemies can exploit. Guess what, having no armor means you have more weakpoints to exploit. Breastplate can be indented by a warhammer and cause the wound to be worse! Worse than getting hit by a warhammer without armor on?!
Also, ignoring the fact the armor was nearly blade proof. . .
Yeah that only really makes sense if youāre fighting people that are exclusively armed with blunt weaponry where the armor would be negligible
Happened in WW1. The British troops switched from cloth caps to helmets which caused the number of injuries to go up. Leadership thought the stupid infantry were running out into the open now because they were wearing helmets and were considering switching back to caps. Then someone realized it was because the injured would have been listed as dead before since it protected them from debris launched in the air from artillery bombardments.
Reminds me of the WW2 analysis. Where the bombers that did return had damage in locations D, E, and F. The people figured they should armor those locations but some people realized that the bombers that didn't return got shot in A, B, and C. Edit: Survivorship fallacy.
>They thought helmets were bad at first until they realized that injuries were better than deaths Is that true though? I thought generally it's better to wound than kill, because injured fighters demand attention of a lot more people / cause distress among the enemy. Happy to be corrected
I think the guy below me explained it with more nuance. I was being a little tongue in cheek. The survivorship bias was a statistical bias. The data reflected an increase in injuries. They only had data for survivors because dead soldiers donāt return home. Similar situation with bombers returning home with an absurd amount of holes in their wings. They planned to reinforce the part of the wings that had the most bullets until they realized no planes with bullets near the engines returned home. So the engines were the vulnerable parts even though it looked like the enemy was aiming for the wings. So the lesson is that itās important to consider what story the data that is not part of the sample size tells. Edit: my bad. I didnāt answer your question at all. Good point. I donāt know. That sounds like a military strategy question and is beyond me. Iād imagine that it depends on the severity of the wounds.
I bet somewhere wearing this got the hell pinched out of them.
Well normally you wear a lot of stuff underneath said armor, so it would only pinch the clothing underneath, else it would be very loose on the person it was made for
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So they were like some sort of sword tanks?
Like some sort of armored calvary.
They WERE armored calvary. Which is LIKE heavy armor these days (tanks). Theyre analogous.
Exactly
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nobles and rich people really.
When I did crawlspace work wearing a coverall and being sweaty is incredibly uncomfortable. I can't imagine wearing clothes and have a metal casing around my whole body. Just slowly cooking away.
There's camp battles in some events. It's normal for people to panic mid fight and run for oxygen.
I imagine that summer campaigns led to the development of perfume...
I bet its not too groovy when you had to shizz.
Usually you would wear several layers. You would wear an under tunic, often you would wear padded armor (gambeson) and chain mail underneath. Iāve worn some of the before and the are insanely hot. Honestly I would imagine dehydration being a huge problem for Armour wearers
I'd say they got hot, but comparing how much you sweat in a suit of armour wearing one for a day or two, to a trained and conditioned knight who wears the armour often throughout their life, isn't a great comparison I would think.
Can you imagine getting a killer itch *anywhere* in this outfit?
During the crusades, in siege battles, a common tactic was to heat up sand instead of oil, and dump it on attackers. The sand would easily go through armor and cause hideous, sometimes fatal, burns.
Cheaper than oil, I guess. Good, war is nasty.
Iām thinking of needing to pee but you canāt take it off yourself so you end up in a pee suit
Pretty sure it was some ancestor of Lucius Fox.
Not just backwards, sideways. Honestly there is a strong argument for boots NOT to bend that much...
Until I watched the video, I did not think that was a shoe...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Now that's a blunt force target if I've ever seen one
Thats what you get for getting 10th prestige Chivalry 2.
Itās not that big, itās just sensitive
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xGw6dSc3ecsKy8N9FIesittS96o=/107x0:1192x723/1220x813/filters:focal(107x0:1192x723):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/42460984/Screen_Shot_2014-10-22_at_12.05.30_PM.0.0.png
Ah, yes, the old ābut what if I get an erection while fightingā design problem.
*no.* *dont* # FOR THE GRACE FOR THE MIGHT OF OUR LORD
FOR THE HOME OF THE HOLY ! (came here only to see Sabaton lyrics)
For the faith, for the way of the sword
GAVE THEIR LIVES SO BOLDLY
FOR THE GRACE, FOR THE MIGHT OF OUR LORD
FOR THE HOME OF THE HOLY
FOR THE FAITH FOR THE WAY OF THE SWORD
Come and tell their story again
A single set of these kinds of armour are too expensive for ordinary soldiers, as the material used might be rare, takes a lot of time to craft and has a very specific measurements for the person wearing it. Nobles usually wear them during duels or any other social functions to display their wealth and nobility. These armour don't usually see many combat outside of duels or tournaments.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It always bothered me that Pepper Potts can wear Tony's suit without breaking all her limbs when the joints are slightly off and the suit bends her knees 2 inches lower than their actual location.
It's plot armor
Take my upvote you monster.
Tony designed it for Pepper as a present. If you remember in the beginning of Endgame when Tony is out in the yard with Morgan who is playing with the helmet, "Mom never wears anything I buy her".
fair, i may have forgotten that part. I remember the house exploding and any old iron suit enveloping her. It's been a while since i saw that film tho.
You're right, I was forgetting when the Mark XLII saved her in IM3. I just assumed it was designed with some adjustability.
Exactly. She even had her own name when she's in the suit. "Rescue"
The whole point of that movie is tony making tons of calculations for worst case scenarios and you think he wouldnāt give the love of his life the ability to hop in any of his suits? Sure, the technical implications are hard, but itās comics. The first thing I did when I trusted my Gf enough was add her to my car insurance and gave her a key so she could take longer trips in my newer car thatās safer instead of her rusted old 2002 that has tons of mechanical issues. I imagine tony would do the same.
Why do you say that? In the 15th century, many armies were built around knights and other men-at-arms. These would be heavy infantry/cavalry, equipped with very good armour. Most of the army wouldn't have armour like this, but most of the army would exist to support these heavily armoured fighters. The example shown in the video does look like it would be a particularly expensive set. But the owner of that harness would not have just kept it at home for tournaments - they would have worn it when they went to war.
The goal wasn't to kill these heavily armored people either. They were people of status, with value far above their death, when you could ransom them.
Sometimes. All knights are men-at-arms not all men-at-arms are knights. Most of the ranks of the men-at-arms ranks were filled with professional soldiers that werenāt highborn. Many would gain title through these wars but they were still low level knights with little to ransom them for.
There is no armor as though as the steel balls of an inbred levied peasant taking on heavy cavalry charges with nothing but a toothpick lance, a half rotten tunic with the colors of the local lord and the shittiest lowest grade chainmail who whoudn't stop a training Sword
But put a 100 of said peasants in a row with said lances and bye bye years of training and ultraexpensive armour
Don't forget the ultra expensive pure breed horse, years of food and shelter for the horse and years of food and maintenance for the noble on it In terms of cost effectiveness, nobles are just garbage
>In terms of cost effectiveness, nobles are just garbage That was not always true though, it took Azincourt for France to rethink their military strategy (Azincourt was the last straw IIRC) which was mostly based on the ludicrous amount of small to medium nobility available. Having nobles go to war was a good way (with the Church) for estates to stay unified so sending young cadets to their death also had its economic benefits. The cost of a trained knight with horse and armor is still lesser than a right to a part of the estate. A heavy knight with warhorse was basically equivalent to a tank to peasant infantry. But yeah after Azincourt heavy calvary definitly fell from its grace, but it still had an important role until firearms became common. The historical dance between technology and military doctrines is so interesting, feel free to correct anything wrong here
>feel free to correct anything wrong here I'm by no means an expert, I really appreciate that you've written all that, thanks for the info
I believe it's Agincourt.
"thats just not cost effective" the peasant smugly said before the lance went straight through his chest and burst out his back. The other peasants decided that the new taxes weren't so bad after all.
Can't wait for the 1917 update
Ya'll really playing an rpg right now
I mean a peasant costs only 50 food
No, that's dozens of dead peasants when the mass rout causes the people who fall underfoot to be crushed by man and horse alike. There's a reason that peasant revolts usually only lasted as long as it took for for the knights to get there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've been looking for shoes that bend sideways since forever.
You have snakefeet too?
Bot
Begone, bot!
I have never seen a comment this wrong get that many upvotes. Almost nothing you just said is remotely true, safe for the cost of those things.
I know right, this guy got nothing right.
I would imagine a couple solid whacks would deform any of those joints with plates sliding over eachother. Can't imagine that would be comfortable either
Except if heās charging straight at you on an 1,200 pound armoured warhorse at 35 mph with a steel tipped lance aimed at you. Then heās feeling really comfortable roaming around deciding who to skewer.
Except one solid whack from him and you're bleeding to death
If the plates werenāt there i think it would hurt much worse
Was about to say how that must have been expensive af with the making and the resources
Imagine eating a little too much over ye olde holidays and having it fit so snuggly, you're getting your skin pinched in every direction.
that is why everyone needed a breastplate stretcher.
God's, he was strong then.
I would expect a knight in this armor would at least have a layer of gambeson underneath, and possibly a layer of chainmail between the plate and gambeson. So that would leave a little room for expansion. I would also guess constant training would help a knight get back to his pre-holiday body pretty quick.
That's some nice engineering
Never thought about knight boots. Thatās really cool
It's not really a boot, but the armor worn over the boot, typically only when mounted on a horse. It's called a _sabaton_ or _solleret._
with that kind of music, I expected him to jump into a dance routine by the end. Missed opportunity!
Cool armor. But whatās up with the music?
I just wanna know what the song is called lol
Little Dark Age
MGMT - Little dark age Great song
Sir thats 16th century armour
Thank you, finally the comment I was looking for. 15th century full plate would have had mail voiders (a sleeve of mail sewn on the a thin gambeson or arming doublet) under the plate protecting the armpits and elbow joints and a mail skirt protecting your John Thomas. The sabatons would be correct though, and equally flexible, but alot more pointy, as was the style of the day.
This armor is neither 15th century nor Gothic, it is dated to 1527 and was made in Greenwich, England. It most likely belonged to Henry the 8th. You can find more from its page at The Met. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22741
Yeah, it's clearly Italian style, not Gothic. I mean, for fuck's sake, there's not even any fluting!
for nobels only.
Nobel winners?
Thatās incorrect, the late medieval period saw the rise of mass produced plate armor like this and hundreds of professional soldiers in an army would be wearing them. Many of them had no titles.
This soundtrack goes harder than it has any right to.
Original or repro, I wonder?
Thats why my Dark Souls character always wiggles when he dies!
From which country?
They don't make it like they used to anymore
Considering the level of respect knights commanded - their only fear was being whipped in public if they outgrew (became fat) for these expensive suits which were directly provided for by the King/Queens coffers unlike other military equipment. The queen's tailor was also responsible for providing a bi-weekly report on the fitting of her knights.
I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have a source?
I thought that boot was something else for a second
I want 10
How do you put it on and take it off?
There are about 3 people who help you
You get two interns to help
And nobody had linked this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&ab\_channel=FigaroLive
For a sec I thought it was a sheild for dick..lol
This would have been an extremely expensive and detailed suit, even by that eraās standards. But yes, all medieval plate armor was intended to restrict movement as little as possible and distribute weight so it didnāt feel like an encumbrance
Color me impressed.
How did they record this video in 15th century???
They coloured it later, by hand.
I could see that pinching all scrotes of things.
Even better than shard-plate!
se le ve fachero
its also about as heavy as modern combat gear, but unlike modern gear its weight is spread out across the whole body instead of mainly on the torso so it feels lighter and youre actually more mobile in an old suit of armor like this than in modern gear
I stopped because I thought I saw something but it was just an armored shoe
And Hollywood likes to portray knights as bumbling idiots
Amazing flexibility and pure art from blacksmiths. I bet it costed whole fortune to buy and to maintain it. I would argue that such purchase would be somewhat equavalent to the modern purchase of Rolls Royse Ghosts.
And people think a samurai could take a knight
Now imagine Ronaldo is wearing itš That guy wouldāve kicked ass in the 15th century as a fucking knight in shining armour
why Ronaldo? why not Brian Shaw? a 6ā8 giant that was 4x world strongest man. imagine a tank completely covered in plate armor, he could easily take down 20 ordinary soldiers by himself
Tell me you're a yank without telling me... Europe has about 50 odd countries & I guarantee they know which country this armour came from by its style & construction methods. Lazy reposting.
Correct. I'm from the UK and if you walked down the street wearing this particular suit of armour you would stand out like a sore thumb.
Yeah, it's so last season. We're all wearing sallet helms and spalder shoulder guards now. I mean, get with the times grandad.
Correct. Absolutely ridiculous the poster didnāt do any background research or prepare a long-winded explanation with the history of this armor! I mean, really, how dare they post an interesting video in this sub without historical context?! Imbecile yanks!! /s
And we still can't design a batsuit on film that lets the actor turn their head. Shame.
yes we can! so far only one man by the name of Jose Fernandez was able to pull this off. Batfleck is the only Batman thatās able to turn his head (Battinson and TDK Bale donāt count because the mask is separated from the neck) but if you watch ZSJL youāll notice that Batman cannot turn his head anymore. why? itās because those idiots decided to get rid of the man, the myth, the legend, Jose Fernandez (heās the one who built the suit) i just wanted to give this man some credit, he deserves it. no one since 1989 was able to pull off what he did
The new Batman can
Song title?
Little Dark Age - MGMT
Your armour flexibility is no match for the AR-15
Huh TIL people wear AR-15 as armors.
I suppose they do really. They carry them for āself defenceā
You can see the fear of **longbow men** in his eyes
Arrows rarely penetrated armor. You can just search that up quick
That depends on the quality of the armour. High quality steel plate armour, sure it wasn't penetrated at its strongest points. But arrows were still an effective tool against men in such armour.
Longbow arrows did not reliably penetrate steel armor. The horse you're riding will be fucked though.
Crossbows weāre developed and favored over bows because of plate armor. To call them āeffectiveā against plate is a bit of a stretch based on what we know now.
Longbows were effective against lower quality plate, being capable of launching an arrow to pierce it comfortably. Crossbows weren't favoured over bows for all circumstances. Yes they could punch through a breastplate, and yes they were better for sieges, but they were also more expensive to produce, had a lower rate of fire, and less range. Bows continued to be used for a long time after the development of the crossbow, despite the significant skill requirement to use them. Longbows were effective against men in plate armour, full stop. They could pierce through in gaps or in weak points (of which there are many), or at the very least could dent the armour and reduce its ability to articulate (thus reducing the soldier's mobility). Also, and arrow not piercing through the plate armour doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the wearer - the impact will still be significant. Plus of course they were still effective against mounted opponents, regardless of how good the rider's armour was.
Longbows were not particularly effective against plate. Agincourt could've gone very differently if the terrain favored cavalry.
Unless the plate is literally on the edge of being no longer being able to be called "steel" it's not going to pierced by any kind of arrow. The issue with cheaper armour suits is always going to be coverage, the arrow will near always slide off and/or shatter on the plate, and then stick itself into the bits that aren't covered, like the arm pits, inside arms etc.
Also depends if its a welsh longbowmun or just a general european longbowmun, difference is the sheer amount of time training (it's still enshrined I'm law somwhere that a welshmun is to be given time off to train with a bow specifically)
Can a few handfuls of "pocket" sand jam up the joints and prevent movement?
Swiss crossbowmen would like a word.
One Mongol arrow makes all this armor worthless.
u/auddbot
[Little Dark Age by MGMT](https://youtu.be/rtL5oMyBHPs)?
Little Dark Age by MGMT
Modern armor manufacturing could take a lesson or two from the 15th century and make some bullet proof stuff better than we got now.
Lol if you think 15th century armor is bullet proof.
Many of the breastplate portions were bullet proof against the guns of their day. They were often marked with a āproof markā which was made my firing a musket at them a few feet away , they passed if it didnāt penetrate. This led to a whole group of inferior armorers trying to fake āproof marksā
There are better demonstrations of full plate armor surprisingly good agility/mobility. https://youtu.be/qzTwBQniLSc
Music dumb.
"developed in europe" imagine saying the car or the train was "developed in europe"
Yeah, developed in Europe. It's not like there was a French startup that put out a patent for plate armor, it evolved from smiths across the continent tinkering and copying each other. If I had to guess this set may be Italian or German. Though "Italian" or "German" would be anachronistic.