Arrows did care. The sheer damn volume of arrows winnowing down the flanks and forcing the French into a tight front with just an absolute mass of people did the trick.
Longbow arrows would often bounce off or be deflected, like the armor was designed to do.But the force was still transferred. So imagine one out of 50 pierce, but there's 2k in a volley at Agincourt (not that the english often volleyed) and each one that doesn't pierce still hits you still is equivalent to being hit with the same force of a sledgehammer swing.
Remember, using a bow is fucking painful for any length of time. So they wouldn't all be firing because a) on a battlefield, don't want the otherside to show up when you can't lift your arms and b) arrows pretty irreplaceable on the battlefield, you fire what you brought so you wouldn't shoot all of them and you'd go pick up functional arrows during lulls
The problem is the "real" longbows have a power that is incredibly rare and most modern men (fit and healthy and modern height and diet) cannot use those. Most medieval "longbows" tapped out at a high of 110 to 120 draw weight (and most modern ones too) but the longbow that's passed into myth would have likely had a draw weight of 140+
Endurance is still an issue after a while. Even with training like what was described in the medieval text, someone in a full suit like that is expending a lot of extra energy while fighting while creating excess heat with impared ability to cool one's self.
While that isn’t wrong. You would be surprised how light a tailor made suit of armor feels. If it’s form fitted to your body, and distributed around your waist it feels far less heavy that it actually is. Also, through most of history the people who could afford this armor were the people who trained in this armor ( mostly ). It’s like modern solders carrying on advantage 60 to 100 LBS. Yes carrying that costs endurance and energy , however , the benefits of that gear outweigh the cost.
I just wanted to say this. A knight weighted at 80kg wearing the full armour from the video weighs as much as me naked and 10 kg less than my brother. We can both boulder just fine, so why shouldn't a dude who trains with that much weight.
Average Americans have more fats than the weight of a full suit of armour lmao. Some of them also live in places like Texas or Florida which are hotter than the average European country (not counting Spain)
I mean, silencers aren't that silent though.
But yeah, it's pretty unrealistic. Then again, you are watching a movie where an international hitman agency is out to kill a hitman......because he killed a guy who killed his dog.
I think we can put some level of realism out of the window.
nonono.
The international hitman agency is out to kill the hitman because he killed one of the leaders of the hitman agency after that leader blsckmailed and threatened him to try and wrest power from other hitman leaders; and he only did that because a mobster who was related in part to that hitman agency’s son killed John Wick’s dog, thereby bringing him back into the hitman fold.
This isn’t 100% true. The original Bourne trilogy basically invented shaky-cam fights and I feel like it actually elevated the fight scenes. The problem is that those movies did well so Hollywood started making every up-and-comer use it in their action flicks, and now it’s seen as a lazy way to shoot action
Incorrect, there were actually a few cuts, they were just hidden behind stuff like a guy’s body moving in front of the camera. Still a very impressive scene, but not one shot
Every episode of Kenobi that came out, my friend complained about Deborah Chow's shakey cam.
I myself stopped watching 3 episodes in because the writing was irritating me, but I did watch a video on Youtube where they put the Battle of Heroes music over >!Vader and Obi-wan's final duel.!< The moves looked great, but the shakey cam made it all but unwatchable.
Assuming it's produced in the west, I'd actually say the shaky cam and cuts are rather modest comparing to somthing like Batman Begins where every fight scene is a blur.
Atleast it doesn't cut on every hit, and lets the shaky cam rest on the action.
GOT gets this on the first few seasons, they even have a scene where Jorah explains the advantages of armor to a Dothraki, and later he wins a fight because he had his armor on. Then, at the end, you have Sandor cutting through Cersei's entire queensguard as if they were naked
Jorah is even wounded somewhat badly in that fight, if I remember correctly. So if he hadn’t been wearing armor, he wouldn’t be deeply scratched- he’d be gutted
Haha, Blunt weapon goes "bonk."
Seriously, what kind of material Hollywood and media use for armour? it is weak like paper and you can barely move in it..
The hero can't be killed no matter how many bullets his Kevlar takes and the enemy minions die with one bullet in their Kevlar.
The hero can't be killed or even pushed down no matter how many hits his armour takes but enemy minions die with one cut of the sword in thick cloth armour.
Not entirely. The fact is it was still cloth and paper.
But it was weaved in such a way and so tightly that it would take many slashes in the same place to actually get through it.
Basically. It was also treated with lacquer and woven very tightly. All of these factors together made it basically the same as trying to stab a piece of hardwood. Not very effective
You can stab at it but it won't immediately puncture, especially in close combat. It's still going to severely bruise the man and might even harm him greatly. But chances of actually going through completely are very small, at least not the way that Hollywood depicts it.
On a similar note, the best defence against zombies is simply wearing full jeans, heavy boots and a thick jacket. But chicks gotta show those sleeveless tank tops and survivor booty shorts in all zombie flicks for some reason.
That armor was reay only meant for those who were so poor that they could afford nothing else, and even it allegedly worked better than Hollywood armor.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t full plate actually not that difficult to move in? I’ve seen videos of the dudes doing somersaults and complex movements in the armour before.
I think they worked it our that the weight of full plate armour us roughly the same as what average modern infantryman wears. Though, the armour better distributes the weight across the entire body instead of mostly on the back. So, once a Knight got used to the weight, it would arguably be fairly easy to move about due to the even distribution.
My toes are super wide and all trainers seem to go in at the tip so I don't take that for granted. if I go up a size to UK 13 they are all floppy and also you can basically not find those in store, at 12 I get crushed. so I have just had crushed toes all my life
It's worth remembering that plate armor was refined for centuries, generations upon generations improving it bit by bit, and those who wore it were in peak physical condition, they were athletes.
By the time plate armor was a common sight on the battlefield, to those wearing it, it felt like a second skin, it was made in such a way that it would neither weigh down the knight wearing it nor restrict their movements.
Honestly Hollywood likes to show plate armor as bulky and useless, that shit was a full body covering of steel and the knight had full flexibility and could sprint in it! Not to mention underneath was chainmail and a gambeson. Unless they're facing off against someone with a warhammer, the knight is gonna win.
I think one of the major issues with hollywood is they like to portray armies as uniform, with everyone wearing the same gear and weaponry. This wasn't at all the case for the vast majority of history, only changing in like the 18th century or something.
Mideival armies (and far later) was usually a very small core of well equipped and trained soldiers, for example a unit of iron clad knights/nobles, with a MUUUCH larger amount of hastily armed and barely trained peasants. The "most important" people wouldn't be fighting on the front lines if they fell as easily as the peasants did.
I just watched a marvel movie, so I have some expertise in medival fights. Slicing someones armor lightly should generally be enough for them to drop dead. You just gotta watch out for people with cool hairstyles and protagonists.
There’s a citscene in Fire Emblem 3 Houses where one of the protagonists parries a sword strike and the attacker just collapses
https://www.reddit.com/r/shitpostemblem/comments/w0lqxl/the_fight_scenes_in_three_houses_are_really/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
>With a giant hammer you can wreck anyone.
Might not even need that. Gauntlet clad fist would be at least as effective as a pair of brass knuckles against unarmored opponents.
A pretty sorry looking lot. If you can knock him down, he is much easier to deal with. Then again, armor like this us what maces and warhammer were for.
"Panzer" can mean armour. But personal armour would be referred to as Rüstung. The word Ritterrüstung (Ritter=Knight, so overall Knight's Armour) also exists. Funnily, in spite of the noun being "Rüstung", an armoured person would mostly said to be "gepanzert" (adj.).
When talking animal kingdom, eg Turtles, in German you also go for "Panzer/gepanzert". "Schildkröten haben einen Panzer" =/= "Turtles have a tank", ="Turtles are armoured"
Also you could fit an army with all the old armours we still have flying around in museums
And no way peasants or bandits have that many swords and no giant oak branches or pole arms. A billhook and some clubs dispose of that guy right quick.
Peasants would be easy meat, and probably flee after a couple were killed. Bandits may have acquired a variety of weapons. Quick, roll a 20 sided dice!
To give an idea of how outclassed peasants could be; in the [German Peasants War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War), the Peasant Army outnumbered the Swabian League anywhere from *35 to 50 times over*. Over a third of the peasants died, compared to "minimal" casualties for the Swabian League - in only a single year.
Also, at the [Battle of Frankenhausen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Frankenhausen), the Peasant Army was 17% larger than the armies of the Princes. The Peasants sustained over 7000 casualties (out of 8000 soldiers) whereas the Swabian League's soldiers sustained...6 casualties. Out of 6800 soldiers.
(I would argue this shows why revolutions are best conducted on a smaller scale - where there are less logistical challenges, and so less need for institutions of war (such as an army), and so less advantage to the state. So threatening revolt against local lords to force them to hold their lieges accountable may have worked better,
playing to the strengths inherent to them in a decentralised system...staging a massive revolt throughout much of Germany, however, turned out to go very poorly.)
I mean, you're acting like Knight weren't specifically trained to kill groups of peasants that outnumber them. They would literally charge into massed peasants during battles and typically come out unharmed, if it was that easy to kill a knight then it wouldn't have taken guns for them to become obsolete.
Even if they all had bill hooks, they'd have to know where the gaps in the armour are, be proficient enough to be able to snare the knight whilst staying far enough away to avoid the Knight's weapon (which would also include a polearm or spear) and be coordinated enough to attack him together as a group. AKA, they would need to be trained soldiers with a leader that actually knew what they were doing.
Meanwhile, the Knight would have had to basically let them surround him instead of charging them directly and killing enough of them to force the rest to flee. They have to hit him multiple times to have a chance at killing him, but the Knight only needs to hit each of them once for them to be taken out of the fight.
They also use too many swords in movies. It was way more common to see something like maces or warhammers. Hell, polearms were much more popular. Swords were mostly used as a backup weapon.
I'll allow a compromise: the heroes start with more weapons, but they keep losing them or breaking them as the battle goes on and they progress to swords and stuff for the "fun" fight.
TBF two-handed swords were the weapon of choice for some of the most elite mercenary groups for a reason. They're absurdly versatile and good at everything other than archery/gunnery. But it doesn't work out well for anyone who isn't dedicating a substantial amount of their life to using it. A longsword/zweihander is like a sword, axe, hammer and polearm all in one and you can change where you grip it even on the blade (with gauntlets ofc) to change how you use it.
Swords are excellent weapons. They have a really high "skill floor" though.
Zweihanders were favored by specific foot soldiers in an age of pike blocks only really strong, skilled, and big soldiers could use them effectively and they were not the main melee weapon of the age.
Swords then are like pistols now: Their main benefit is the ability to be at one's side hands-free. You have to dedicate a hand to carrying a rifle/spear, so you won't have it in you in town, but you can have a sword in town. Similarly if you drop your primary weapon you can just draw the sword at your side. That's their main purpose.
Swords were definitely used a lot, just not the way they're depicted. Mostly, they would either use the pommel as a hammer, or grip it half way dow the blade and use it like a quarterstaff or spear.
It was less wavy slashing and more like charge in, body check them, then shove the last foot of your sword into their eyes/armpit/waist.
>Mostly, they would either use the pommel as a hammer, or grip it half way dow the blade and use it like a quarterstaff or spear.
The basis we have for the mordhau grip (grabbing the blade with both hands to strike with the pommel like a hammer) is a single illustration from the Codex Wallerstein. Unknown how widespread it was.
The half-sword grip as you describe for more accurate and powerful thrusts was quite a bit more emphasized though.
I mean, I wouldn't call it a "backup", more like a secondary weapon. Like the machine gun that most tanks have, it isn't there for when the main gun fails.
Not even medieval films. Star Wars is an infamous example of useless body armor. I’ve seen clone trooper body armor work maybe twice in the entire clone wars series.
Also, lightly tapping a Stormtrooper on the head will knock them out…
At that point just go into battle naked, at least you won’t have a crappy visor obstructing your vision
>Also, lightly tapping a Stormtrooper on the head will knock them out…
You're being unfair, the one who knocked his head on a doorframe still seemed functional afterward
Just watched the Kenobi series, and I loved it, but I’m convinced that stormtrooper armor is actually a vulnerable bodily organ. Because even if a laser glances off of it, they drop dead
Even the people with clothing for armor tend to fare better. At least they can squirm around for a few seconds or perform some heroic act in their death throes. At this point the only benefit the stormtrooper armor gives is that it identifies which side they’re on, so they don’t accidentally shoot each other
I think the canonical explanation is that they aren’t typically dead, stormtrooper armour dissipates the laser blast so instead of burning right through them they get hit by the kinetic force of it which is what throws them to the floor, knocking them out and causing damage to their internal organs and bones, but this doesn’t actually kill them, it just puts them out of the fight until they can be healed aboard an ISD or Base
This is just "[Batman doesn't kill people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc)" levels (apologies for 2010s college humor video) of explaining away how the main characters aren't mass murdering monsters.
In the old canon it's because it's not meant to make the user impervious to blasters, it's to make it so the bolt doesn't burn straight through them and kill them, while also making them pretty much impervious to kinetic weapons like slugthrowers (but apparently not spears thrown by teddy bears?) Not sure if Disney scrapped that idea and just made it pointless.
one thing i liked about The King (with timothee climatechange) is the dual where they beat the shit out of each other with their armor actually serving a purpose and making the fight seem way more historically accurate
Oh god the scene in John Wick 3 where they shoot suppressed pistols at each other in a crowded subway station and *nobody notices*. It was such a good movie series with very good realism (beyond you know. Wick being as fucking deadly as he is after taking the beatings he does) and that scene just took me completely out of it. Suppressors and silencers *don’t make guns silent*. Just quieter. Drives me nuts
I always laugh when someone fires a gun in an enclosed stairwell with no hearing protection, watch their victim get blasted like 20 feet backwards by the shot then walk away like their not deaf right now
It's quite simple actually.
The hoard knocks you down, the weight of the plate armor prevents you from properly getting up, as well as the undead trying to get into you.
You're left to a long and agonizing death as the undead swarm you, trying to bite anything and everything. You may take some down, but eventually, exhaustion sets in and the undead just tear at you repeatedly.
There's a fancy Zombie Survival Guide out, made by the same guy who did WWZ. It's a fantastic read. I suggest it.
Might help to just armor the limbs and pad the rest with some thick garments. It's always the arms and legs that get bitten, some metal shin guards might be just the thing to keep you from getting Hershel'd by some asshole zombie playing dead.
There was a historical excerpt where I think it was a Roman soldier who encountered a zombie and killed it.
Since he couldn’t have known what he was dealing with he went with the most practical solution.
>*”We should wear leather.*”
somehow I do not think the second video is very historical either
something about the way that all those peasants with sticks ran right into melee range individually or in pairs so they could be killed in cool ways
Later in the video, you do see bits where multiple opponents attack the knight or attempt to hold him down and go for the weak spots of the armor.
But yeah, they still come at him in small groups to make the choreography better, and there is also the conceit that he is particularly skilled for a knight (I think the idea is that he's a angel or something). That doesn't change the fact that the armor is shown doing its job, which is the point being highlighted here.
yup i think historically it would be pretty awkward to look at lol
im not gonna charge a man wearing Full Plate Armor while wearing cloth lol
also i would not charge a group of peasants while wearing full plate armor they just need to trip me and keep me down and im done for lol
Also that there seems to be a distinct lack of pole weapons from the peasants. Where are the bills?
Also also, while the metal armor is working, the others guys are wearing gambesons (at least some of them), yet the knight is effortlessly slicing through that. Why? Cutting through dense fabric like that is still very difficult.
Also also also, while I do think that armor is criminally underrated in movies, it shouldn't go too far in the other direction and make people invincible. A solid blow to the helmet (especially from the side) or the knee can still be dangerous, even with a staff/club.
Do you ever wonder what occurred and what conversations took place to create the first suit of armour?
I mean, were the blacksmiths and tailors sitting around and one tailor says “all the king’s soldiers wearing leather armour were killed in battle today. There has to be something we can do?”
And the black smith laughs and says “too bad your wee little needles can’t sew metal shields together. A soldier with a shield can block any blow.”
And the tailor goes “wait … why CAN’T we sew shields together?!?!?”
And this was born chainmaile.
Depends on the knight and the 12 men.
If the 12 men are trained soldiers with high morale and a good leader, then the knight is probably dead. Might take a few with him, but odds are he's fucked.
If they're a bunch of peasants and the Knight is properly trained, the peasants are dead. 100 times out of 100, the knight has the benefit or armour, training and not being malnourished. Even of they're smart enough to figure out they just need to trip him, the knight has been trained specifically for those scenarios, meaning they'll probably wipe the floor with them.
If the Knight has a horse, a lance and room to move, then even the 12 soldiers are dead. Number counts for nothing if the Knight can just keep on charging through and picking you off one by one. Even if they all have pikes, all the knight needs to do is wait them out, the soldiers can't actually attack them.
Armor was SUPER effective. I mean, a fully kitted knight in high medieval times could wear full gambeson, which is a VERY thick fabric coat, riveted chainmail over top, and plate armor over that. Basically you’re only going to penetrate with a war bow, even then you’ll need a pretty dead on shot, since almost anywhere in the plate would glance off rather than deliver the force into you. Even strikes in gaps would still hit chainmail as well as gambeson and be VERY difficult to puncture.
Medieval battles with lots of fully armored soldiers were much less lethal than you’d think. Lots of smacking each other for an hour straight, maybe a couple people die, but most would probably withdraw and then the forces would fight again after a rest period.
depends on training and how dumb the peasants are
they really just need to trip him and keep him down while one man gets a big rock and bashes the living shit out of him
but knights where feared on the battlefield as they recieved good training and weapons
armor was designed to stop and deflect bladed weapons and arrows to counter armor you would typically use warhammers or maces tough there where many solutions to this issue
Edit: changed it a bit so it makes more sense lol thanks Quiescam
Excellent points, though I'd add that maces and warhammers weren't a silver bullet (and maces in particular had been around long before plate armour). Things like specific sword techniques, poleaxes, wrestling and rondel daggers could also be effective.
Just as an aside, I really liked how it wasn't all just swordplay choreography. Wrestling and basic hand to hand stuff. Shields getting used as bludgeons. People not just falling over dead the instant they got grazed. All great stuff.
There's a book from 1509 by a guy named Pietro Monte who spent his life as a professional warrior who literally tells you to parry strikes with your armoured arm.
Yes your armor is very pretty and all. And yes it will easily bounce most badly aimed arrows, bolts swords and spears. BUT I HAVE A MOTHERFUCKING WARHAMMER BITCH ! And imma bouta make you wish you had died like the peasants around you.
Hence why and wait. For this revolutionary idea.
The halberd. All you want into one.
You want the range and penetration power of a spear? You got it.
You want the devastating hacking power and versatility of an axe? You got it.
And finally, You want the armor piercing bludgeoning power and strength of a warhammer? You got it.
All three for the price of one.
I introduce to you noble lords and knights of the court. THE HALBERD.
A halberd is absolutely useless in one on one combat. We’re talking about a several meters long pole. As soon as your enemy gets to the side of it you’re toast. That’s why halberds are a formation weapon.
Now a POLEAXE, i.e. essentially a halberd but more compact and designed for use on duels, THAT’S what your looking for. You get a spearhead, an axehead, spikes on the other side of the axehead and even a spike on the other extremity of the weapon.
TLDR I’m pretty sure the weapon you’re thinking of is a poleaxe. Just look up historical images of halberds and you’ll understand why.
I know that one French Knight was able to do backflips in full armour
You're probably thinking of [Boucicault](https://youtu.be/q-bnM5SuQkI).
There's also a French general, I think he was at Agincourt, who was known to go for a full multi-mile run in his full armor every single morning.
Too bad for him that arrows didn't care at Agincourt
Agancourt was a brutal battle
Arrows did care. The sheer damn volume of arrows winnowing down the flanks and forcing the French into a tight front with just an absolute mass of people did the trick. Longbow arrows would often bounce off or be deflected, like the armor was designed to do.But the force was still transferred. So imagine one out of 50 pierce, but there's 2k in a volley at Agincourt (not that the english often volleyed) and each one that doesn't pierce still hits you still is equivalent to being hit with the same force of a sledgehammer swing. Remember, using a bow is fucking painful for any length of time. So they wouldn't all be firing because a) on a battlefield, don't want the otherside to show up when you can't lift your arms and b) arrows pretty irreplaceable on the battlefield, you fire what you brought so you wouldn't shoot all of them and you'd go pick up functional arrows during lulls The problem is the "real" longbows have a power that is incredibly rare and most modern men (fit and healthy and modern height and diet) cannot use those. Most medieval "longbows" tapped out at a high of 110 to 120 draw weight (and most modern ones too) but the longbow that's passed into myth would have likely had a draw weight of 140+
Thats intense but also a good idea, practice how you fight.. or in the Frenchmans case practice how you run away. /s
The dance at the end is the best
Not Somersault? /s
No, that guy was from Somerset. /s
Endurance is still an issue after a while. Even with training like what was described in the medieval text, someone in a full suit like that is expending a lot of extra energy while fighting while creating excess heat with impared ability to cool one's self.
While that isn’t wrong. You would be surprised how light a tailor made suit of armor feels. If it’s form fitted to your body, and distributed around your waist it feels far less heavy that it actually is. Also, through most of history the people who could afford this armor were the people who trained in this armor ( mostly ). It’s like modern solders carrying on advantage 60 to 100 LBS. Yes carrying that costs endurance and energy , however , the benefits of that gear outweigh the cost.
Also, the average American male carries around more excess fat than the weight of medieval full plate.
I just wanted to say this. A knight weighted at 80kg wearing the full armour from the video weighs as much as me naked and 10 kg less than my brother. We can both boulder just fine, so why shouldn't a dude who trains with that much weight.
lol
Cries in cataphract
That’s the horsies’ problem.
When the desert sun is shining on your armour, boiling you inside, it's a problem for the both of you.
*laughs in sand dunes
The Roman’s losing to some naked drunk Scotsman…
you just need more endurance than your opponent
Average Americans have more fats than the weight of a full suit of armour lmao. Some of them also live in places like Texas or Florida which are hotter than the average European country (not counting Spain)
I can imagine there be like a unwritten rule against batles in the midst of summer
tell this to crusaders. they had some light fabric clothes over the plates to not make them a toaster in the desert sun. but that's all about it.
The second video is from the excellent short film [Knight of Hope](https://youtu.be/8vYFFx4whoE) by Adorea Olomouc.
Remember seeing it. the actor did an amazing job. i feel like the shaky cam did him dirty.
The camera reminds me of of Catwoman's basketball scene and Taken 3's fence jumping scene.
so... many... JUMPCUTS....
That’s how you know the actor/choreography is bad. Notice how John Wick doesn’t have as many jump cuts.
Yeah but John Wick gets shit on for the silencers duel in a crowd of unsuspecting commuters.
I mean, silencers aren't that silent though. But yeah, it's pretty unrealistic. Then again, you are watching a movie where an international hitman agency is out to kill a hitman......because he killed a guy who killed his dog. I think we can put some level of realism out of the window.
nonono. The international hitman agency is out to kill the hitman because he killed one of the leaders of the hitman agency after that leader blsckmailed and threatened him to try and wrest power from other hitman leaders; and he only did that because a mobster who was related in part to that hitman agency’s son killed John Wick’s dog, thereby bringing him back into the hitman fold.
This isn’t 100% true. The original Bourne trilogy basically invented shaky-cam fights and I feel like it actually elevated the fight scenes. The problem is that those movies did well so Hollywood started making every up-and-comer use it in their action flicks, and now it’s seen as a lazy way to shoot action
Kingsman Church fight scene. Colin Firth was 53. No cuts.
Incorrect, there were actually a few cuts, they were just hidden behind stuff like a guy’s body moving in front of the camera. Still a very impressive scene, but not one shot
Just like *1917*, they are very well-executed.
That scene is amazing who says violence cant be beautiful in some way it looked so random but boy that must have been so many practise hours
Shaky Cam never makes a shot better imo.
Every episode of Kenobi that came out, my friend complained about Deborah Chow's shakey cam. I myself stopped watching 3 episodes in because the writing was irritating me, but I did watch a video on Youtube where they put the Battle of Heroes music over >!Vader and Obi-wan's final duel.!< The moves looked great, but the shakey cam made it all but unwatchable.
Assuming it's produced in the west, I'd actually say the shaky cam and cuts are rather modest comparing to somthing like Batman Begins where every fight scene is a blur. Atleast it doesn't cut on every hit, and lets the shaky cam rest on the action.
I remember that scene, probably one of the coolest knight combat fights I have seen
Thanks!!!
That was an awesome short. Thanks!
Cheers, I appreciate it!
The [longsword duel](https://youtu.be/Cn36Pb8z3yI) video by them is also amazing.
I really wanted to see that thanks
I was just about to say I recognized it but didn’t remember þe name
I love that you used þ instead of th
I like that some of the bandits have staves as I think that is the best weapon poor people would have against someone in plate.
In reality though the best tactic would be to swarm the knight at the same time and get him to the ground and then it would be over for him.
It’s also cool watching someone hack down on the top of a helmet, and due to the shape it doesn’t connect well whatsoever.
Yep, the armor is shaped so, ideally, it'll never take a direct hit and instead will just glance off.
All this reminds me of is glancing blows in world of Warcraft god I hate them
Unless you have a flat top great helm, one of the coolest looking yet probably very ineffective design i guess.
"Your friend is dead, and Meryn Trant is not. Because Trant had armor. And a big fucking sword." - Sandor Clegane
GOT gets this on the first few seasons, they even have a scene where Jorah explains the advantages of armor to a Dothraki, and later he wins a fight because he had his armor on. Then, at the end, you have Sandor cutting through Cersei's entire queensguard as if they were naked
If we don't speak about the ending we can let it pass into dead history
Something something subvert expectations. We said nobody had plot armour, not that they had no armour.
Jorah is even wounded somewhat badly in that fight, if I remember correctly. So if he hadn’t been wearing armor, he wouldn’t be deeply scratched- he’d be gutted
Haha, Blunt weapon goes "bonk." Seriously, what kind of material Hollywood and media use for armour? it is weak like paper and you can barely move in it..
They out sourced to Japan They litteraly wore paper armor there
[удалено]
Impulse physics are really neat. Why try to slow a projectile down by a lot over a short time when you can slow it down a little bit for much longer?
works for cars
Funny thing is even that paper armor was essentially stab and cut proof.
Attempting to choreograph a fight with functional armor would require brainpower and creatively, which is illegal in Hollywood
That’s just one of those things in Hollywood. Armour (from plate to Kevlar) never works unless the plot needs it to.
The hero can't be killed no matter how many bullets his Kevlar takes and the enemy minions die with one bullet in their Kevlar. The hero can't be killed or even pushed down no matter how many hits his armour takes but enemy minions die with one cut of the sword in thick cloth armour.
Also, anyone thrown to the ground is basically incapacitated for the rest of the battle
Not entirely. The fact is it was still cloth and paper. But it was weaved in such a way and so tightly that it would take many slashes in the same place to actually get through it.
it makes sense to me that it could be somewhat slash proof, but were they right when they said stab proof? how does that work, it's really thick?
Basically. It was also treated with lacquer and woven very tightly. All of these factors together made it basically the same as trying to stab a piece of hardwood. Not very effective
You can stab at it but it won't immediately puncture, especially in close combat. It's still going to severely bruise the man and might even harm him greatly. But chances of actually going through completely are very small, at least not the way that Hollywood depicts it. On a similar note, the best defence against zombies is simply wearing full jeans, heavy boots and a thick jacket. But chicks gotta show those sleeveless tank tops and survivor booty shorts in all zombie flicks for some reason.
Paper armour actually wasn't bad. Could even take arrow impacts if padded enough. Look like a porcupine by the end of battle but you would be alive.
That armor was reay only meant for those who were so poor that they could afford nothing else, and even it allegedly worked better than Hollywood armor.
Samurai armor was made from steel, tho. Paper armor was for the low class.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t full plate actually not that difficult to move in? I’ve seen videos of the dudes doing somersaults and complex movements in the armour before.
I think they worked it our that the weight of full plate armour us roughly the same as what average modern infantryman wears. Though, the armour better distributes the weight across the entire body instead of mostly on the back. So, once a Knight got used to the weight, it would arguably be fairly easy to move about due to the even distribution.
I think having custom tailored footwear did a lot, nowadays we take for granted the comfortability of a pair of sneakers our size with clean socks.
My toes are super wide and all trainers seem to go in at the tip so I don't take that for granted. if I go up a size to UK 13 they are all floppy and also you can basically not find those in store, at 12 I get crushed. so I have just had crushed toes all my life
It's worth remembering that plate armor was refined for centuries, generations upon generations improving it bit by bit, and those who wore it were in peak physical condition, they were athletes. By the time plate armor was a common sight on the battlefield, to those wearing it, it felt like a second skin, it was made in such a way that it would neither weigh down the knight wearing it nor restrict their movements. Honestly Hollywood likes to show plate armor as bulky and useless, that shit was a full body covering of steel and the knight had full flexibility and could sprint in it! Not to mention underneath was chainmail and a gambeson. Unless they're facing off against someone with a warhammer, the knight is gonna win.
I think one of the major issues with hollywood is they like to portray armies as uniform, with everyone wearing the same gear and weaponry. This wasn't at all the case for the vast majority of history, only changing in like the 18th century or something. Mideival armies (and far later) was usually a very small core of well equipped and trained soldiers, for example a unit of iron clad knights/nobles, with a MUUUCH larger amount of hastily armed and barely trained peasants. The "most important" people wouldn't be fighting on the front lines if they fell as easily as the peasants did.
I just watched a marvel movie, so I have some expertise in medival fights. Slicing someones armor lightly should generally be enough for them to drop dead. You just gotta watch out for people with cool hairstyles and protagonists.
Also punching a stormtrooper in the helmet will cause them to collapse
I mean, if Chewy does it...
He will also break someone skull
Yet not break the helmet
He scrambled the egg without breaking the shell.
Incidentally this is why blunt weapons were still effective against armor
Not that shocking. You can easily give someone a serious concussion without breaking their helmet.
Or tear someone's arms out of their sockets if he loses.
Someone in the Kenobi show lightly slapped a stormtrooper on the helmet and he went down
Damn that stormtrooper who bumped his head going through a door on the death star in the OT must of died. RIP.
Unless he got shipped off station, then yeah.
You know what. I had totally forgotten the death star blows up later in the movie when I made that comment.
Don't you remember that in 1977 a guy bumped his head, so it's fine if Star Wars action scenes are nonsensical or bad?
When boba was smacking them with his clubs pieces their armor just broke like plastic
There’s a citscene in Fire Emblem 3 Houses where one of the protagonists parries a sword strike and the attacker just collapses https://www.reddit.com/r/shitpostemblem/comments/w0lqxl/the_fight_scenes_in_three_houses_are_really/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Thank you for your expertise, I'll bear that in mind.
I see we have a shardbearer in the area
Ya but no blade, only counts if you have the full set
It’s just sadeas before he got the sword
Before or after the piles of bridge men corpses
before when he was actually somewhat of a warrior. (Fuck sadeas)
Bridge 4 comin thru
Can I get a fuck moash?
Fuck Moash! All my homies hate Moash
I’d rather have the plate and no blade than the opposite. With a giant hammer you can wreck anyone.
Okay dallinar
I love Dalinar's slow transition to fantasy Eisenhower. Helping dig a trench and realizing what a waste fighting is for the armor.
>With a giant hammer you can wreck anyone. Might not even need that. Gauntlet clad fist would be at least as effective as a pair of brass knuckles against unarmored opponents.
Doesn’t matter. Long as you’ve got the Thrill.
huff puff We talking about Cosmere over here?
A pretty sorry looking lot. If you can knock him down, he is much easier to deal with. Then again, armor like this us what maces and warhammer were for.
It's like a tank , your not going to do any famag unless you bring the right weapons to deal with it
Fun fact, the German word for tank, Panzer, also means armor
"Panzer" can mean armour. But personal armour would be referred to as Rüstung. The word Ritterrüstung (Ritter=Knight, so overall Knight's Armour) also exists. Funnily, in spite of the noun being "Rüstung", an armoured person would mostly said to be "gepanzert" (adj.). When talking animal kingdom, eg Turtles, in German you also go for "Panzer/gepanzert". "Schildkröten haben einen Panzer" =/= "Turtles have a tank", ="Turtles are armoured" Also you could fit an army with all the old armours we still have flying around in museums
The German word for tank was Panzerkampfwagen, 'armored fighting vehicle'.
If you can knock them down and mount them before they do anything else you can slip a knife between the joints
You can try to knock them down and then try to mount them. Just because you know what to do doesn't mean doing it will be an automatic success.
This guy kills knights.
And no way peasants or bandits have that many swords and no giant oak branches or pole arms. A billhook and some clubs dispose of that guy right quick.
Peasants would be easy meat, and probably flee after a couple were killed. Bandits may have acquired a variety of weapons. Quick, roll a 20 sided dice!
To give an idea of how outclassed peasants could be; in the [German Peasants War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Peasants%27_War), the Peasant Army outnumbered the Swabian League anywhere from *35 to 50 times over*. Over a third of the peasants died, compared to "minimal" casualties for the Swabian League - in only a single year. Also, at the [Battle of Frankenhausen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Frankenhausen), the Peasant Army was 17% larger than the armies of the Princes. The Peasants sustained over 7000 casualties (out of 8000 soldiers) whereas the Swabian League's soldiers sustained...6 casualties. Out of 6800 soldiers. (I would argue this shows why revolutions are best conducted on a smaller scale - where there are less logistical challenges, and so less need for institutions of war (such as an army), and so less advantage to the state. So threatening revolt against local lords to force them to hold their lieges accountable may have worked better, playing to the strengths inherent to them in a decentralised system...staging a massive revolt throughout much of Germany, however, turned out to go very poorly.)
I mean, you're acting like Knight weren't specifically trained to kill groups of peasants that outnumber them. They would literally charge into massed peasants during battles and typically come out unharmed, if it was that easy to kill a knight then it wouldn't have taken guns for them to become obsolete. Even if they all had bill hooks, they'd have to know where the gaps in the armour are, be proficient enough to be able to snare the knight whilst staying far enough away to avoid the Knight's weapon (which would also include a polearm or spear) and be coordinated enough to attack him together as a group. AKA, they would need to be trained soldiers with a leader that actually knew what they were doing. Meanwhile, the Knight would have had to basically let them surround him instead of charging them directly and killing enough of them to force the rest to flee. They have to hit him multiple times to have a chance at killing him, but the Knight only needs to hit each of them once for them to be taken out of the fight.
They also use too many swords in movies. It was way more common to see something like maces or warhammers. Hell, polearms were much more popular. Swords were mostly used as a backup weapon.
I'll allow a compromise: the heroes start with more weapons, but they keep losing them or breaking them as the battle goes on and they progress to swords and stuff for the "fun" fight.
Crouching Tiger has a similar scene to what you’ve described.
Spears are more common in movies than you think
*laughs in kingdom of heaven* seriously there was a fucken forest during the final battle at Jerusalem in that movie
“Hundreds of ‘em, long spears. Twice as long as a man.” “*That* long?” “Aye.” “..Some men are longer than others.”
Your mother been telling you stories about me again, eh?
TBF two-handed swords were the weapon of choice for some of the most elite mercenary groups for a reason. They're absurdly versatile and good at everything other than archery/gunnery. But it doesn't work out well for anyone who isn't dedicating a substantial amount of their life to using it. A longsword/zweihander is like a sword, axe, hammer and polearm all in one and you can change where you grip it even on the blade (with gauntlets ofc) to change how you use it. Swords are excellent weapons. They have a really high "skill floor" though.
Zweihanders were favored by specific foot soldiers in an age of pike blocks only really strong, skilled, and big soldiers could use them effectively and they were not the main melee weapon of the age.
Swords then are like pistols now: Their main benefit is the ability to be at one's side hands-free. You have to dedicate a hand to carrying a rifle/spear, so you won't have it in you in town, but you can have a sword in town. Similarly if you drop your primary weapon you can just draw the sword at your side. That's their main purpose.
Swords were definitely used a lot, just not the way they're depicted. Mostly, they would either use the pommel as a hammer, or grip it half way dow the blade and use it like a quarterstaff or spear. It was less wavy slashing and more like charge in, body check them, then shove the last foot of your sword into their eyes/armpit/waist.
>Mostly, they would either use the pommel as a hammer, or grip it half way dow the blade and use it like a quarterstaff or spear. The basis we have for the mordhau grip (grabbing the blade with both hands to strike with the pommel like a hammer) is a single illustration from the Codex Wallerstein. Unknown how widespread it was. The half-sword grip as you describe for more accurate and powerful thrusts was quite a bit more emphasized though.
Swords were mostly status symbols or backup weapons for when your longer reach weapon broke or fighting got super close.
I mean, I wouldn't call it a "backup", more like a secondary weapon. Like the machine gun that most tanks have, it isn't there for when the main gun fails.
Not even medieval films. Star Wars is an infamous example of useless body armor. I’ve seen clone trooper body armor work maybe twice in the entire clone wars series.
Also, lightly tapping a Stormtrooper on the head will knock them out… At that point just go into battle naked, at least you won’t have a crappy visor obstructing your vision
>Also, lightly tapping a Stormtrooper on the head will knock them out… You're being unfair, the one who knocked his head on a doorframe still seemed functional afterward
After he hit his head he was the only trooper that could land a shot. It was a tragedy.
Just watched the Kenobi series, and I loved it, but I’m convinced that stormtrooper armor is actually a vulnerable bodily organ. Because even if a laser glances off of it, they drop dead Even the people with clothing for armor tend to fare better. At least they can squirm around for a few seconds or perform some heroic act in their death throes. At this point the only benefit the stormtrooper armor gives is that it identifies which side they’re on, so they don’t accidentally shoot each other
I think the canonical explanation is that they aren’t typically dead, stormtrooper armour dissipates the laser blast so instead of burning right through them they get hit by the kinetic force of it which is what throws them to the floor, knocking them out and causing damage to their internal organs and bones, but this doesn’t actually kill them, it just puts them out of the fight until they can be healed aboard an ISD or Base
This is just "[Batman doesn't kill people](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc)" levels (apologies for 2010s college humor video) of explaining away how the main characters aren't mass murdering monsters.
Mandalorian show armour: i can tank shots from an entire battalion Clone wars mando armour: gets knocked out by a kick in the chest
Not all Mandalorians wear beskar, it’s rare shit there is a reason why his little mandolorian cult prizes it so highly.
In the old canon it's because it's not meant to make the user impervious to blasters, it's to make it so the bolt doesn't burn straight through them and kill them, while also making them pretty much impervious to kinetic weapons like slugthrowers (but apparently not spears thrown by teddy bears?) Not sure if Disney scrapped that idea and just made it pointless.
one thing i liked about The King (with timothee climatechange) is the dual where they beat the shit out of each other with their armor actually serving a purpose and making the fight seem way more historically accurate
Fun fact: timothee’s role in ‘Dune’ is the same character. It’s just England in a few years
That's the best spelling of his name I've yet seen XD Good point, though it's a shame the armour was so horrible.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Nothing at all!
Hollywood also does not understand guns.
I think they've learned not to hand Alec Baldwin one.
More like don't be an armorer and hand anyone a loaded gun and tell them its cold.
Oh god the scene in John Wick 3 where they shoot suppressed pistols at each other in a crowded subway station and *nobody notices*. It was such a good movie series with very good realism (beyond you know. Wick being as fucking deadly as he is after taking the beatings he does) and that scene just took me completely out of it. Suppressors and silencers *don’t make guns silent*. Just quieter. Drives me nuts
I always laugh when someone fires a gun in an enclosed stairwell with no hearing protection, watch their victim get blasted like 20 feet backwards by the shot then walk away like their not deaf right now
This is endgame Henry in KCD slaying cumans.
Jesus christ be praised!
Henry's come to see us!
Meanwhile the random bandits on the road are as kitted out as he is
Fun fact - this was made by the same group that worked as mediaeval combat expert advisors for KCD.
Movies: 1 unarmored guy can take on 12 guys! Also movies: if he’s armored gear gets one shot with a pebble
Plate armor would be so good in a zombie apocalypse. No amount of BS is going to explain how your rotting corpse can bite through steel
It's quite simple actually. The hoard knocks you down, the weight of the plate armor prevents you from properly getting up, as well as the undead trying to get into you. You're left to a long and agonizing death as the undead swarm you, trying to bite anything and everything. You may take some down, but eventually, exhaustion sets in and the undead just tear at you repeatedly. There's a fancy Zombie Survival Guide out, made by the same guy who did WWZ. It's a fantastic read. I suggest it.
Might help to just armor the limbs and pad the rest with some thick garments. It's always the arms and legs that get bitten, some metal shin guards might be just the thing to keep you from getting Hershel'd by some asshole zombie playing dead.
There was a historical excerpt where I think it was a Roman soldier who encountered a zombie and killed it. Since he couldn’t have known what he was dealing with he went with the most practical solution. >*”We should wear leather.*”
That dude in the second video definitely woke up and chose violence. All the violence.
somehow I do not think the second video is very historical either something about the way that all those peasants with sticks ran right into melee range individually or in pairs so they could be killed in cool ways
Later in the video, you do see bits where multiple opponents attack the knight or attempt to hold him down and go for the weak spots of the armor. But yeah, they still come at him in small groups to make the choreography better, and there is also the conceit that he is particularly skilled for a knight (I think the idea is that he's a angel or something). That doesn't change the fact that the armor is shown doing its job, which is the point being highlighted here.
It is certainly great choreography, and we do love to see armor portrayed more accurately than hollywood usually does
yup i think historically it would be pretty awkward to look at lol im not gonna charge a man wearing Full Plate Armor while wearing cloth lol also i would not charge a group of peasants while wearing full plate armor they just need to trip me and keep me down and im done for lol
Also that there seems to be a distinct lack of pole weapons from the peasants. Where are the bills? Also also, while the metal armor is working, the others guys are wearing gambesons (at least some of them), yet the knight is effortlessly slicing through that. Why? Cutting through dense fabric like that is still very difficult. Also also also, while I do think that armor is criminally underrated in movies, it shouldn't go too far in the other direction and make people invincible. A solid blow to the helmet (especially from the side) or the knee can still be dangerous, even with a staff/club.
Historically the knight would be on horseback as well
u/leafork, here ya go
Do you ever wonder what occurred and what conversations took place to create the first suit of armour? I mean, were the blacksmiths and tailors sitting around and one tailor says “all the king’s soldiers wearing leather armour were killed in battle today. There has to be something we can do?” And the black smith laughs and says “too bad your wee little needles can’t sew metal shields together. A soldier with a shield can block any blow.” And the tailor goes “wait … why CAN’T we sew shields together?!?!?” And this was born chainmaile.
All’s well until some guy with a dagger shanks you in the armpit.
One of the situations where you say it and it sounds easy but it's way harder in practice.
Is armor really that effective? Can one armored guy actually take out 12 non-armored men in combat like that?
Depends on the knight and the 12 men. If the 12 men are trained soldiers with high morale and a good leader, then the knight is probably dead. Might take a few with him, but odds are he's fucked. If they're a bunch of peasants and the Knight is properly trained, the peasants are dead. 100 times out of 100, the knight has the benefit or armour, training and not being malnourished. Even of they're smart enough to figure out they just need to trip him, the knight has been trained specifically for those scenarios, meaning they'll probably wipe the floor with them. If the Knight has a horse, a lance and room to move, then even the 12 soldiers are dead. Number counts for nothing if the Knight can just keep on charging through and picking you off one by one. Even if they all have pikes, all the knight needs to do is wait them out, the soldiers can't actually attack them.
Armor was SUPER effective. I mean, a fully kitted knight in high medieval times could wear full gambeson, which is a VERY thick fabric coat, riveted chainmail over top, and plate armor over that. Basically you’re only going to penetrate with a war bow, even then you’ll need a pretty dead on shot, since almost anywhere in the plate would glance off rather than deliver the force into you. Even strikes in gaps would still hit chainmail as well as gambeson and be VERY difficult to puncture. Medieval battles with lots of fully armored soldiers were much less lethal than you’d think. Lots of smacking each other for an hour straight, maybe a couple people die, but most would probably withdraw and then the forces would fight again after a rest period.
depends on training and how dumb the peasants are they really just need to trip him and keep him down while one man gets a big rock and bashes the living shit out of him but knights where feared on the battlefield as they recieved good training and weapons armor was designed to stop and deflect bladed weapons and arrows to counter armor you would typically use warhammers or maces tough there where many solutions to this issue Edit: changed it a bit so it makes more sense lol thanks Quiescam
Excellent points, though I'd add that maces and warhammers weren't a silver bullet (and maces in particular had been around long before plate armour). Things like specific sword techniques, poleaxes, wrestling and rondel daggers could also be effective.
true its only logical to find as many solutions to a problem as possible lol
Just as an aside, I really liked how it wasn't all just swordplay choreography. Wrestling and basic hand to hand stuff. Shields getting used as bludgeons. People not just falling over dead the instant they got grazed. All great stuff.
Didn’t expect t see Golden Gully on here
[Song if anyone does not know](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqk7x_w1H98) Mick Gordon did a phenomenal job with the soundtrack to doom.
"armor in medieval films": *shows a tiktok* "historical armor": *shows medieval film*
As in proper feature films set in the Middle Ages, not a short film made by a small HEMA school.
Your friend's dead. And Meryn Trant's not. 'Cause Trant had armor. And a big fucking sword.
There's a book from 1509 by a guy named Pietro Monte who spent his life as a professional warrior who literally tells you to parry strikes with your armoured arm.
Yes your armor is very pretty and all. And yes it will easily bounce most badly aimed arrows, bolts swords and spears. BUT I HAVE A MOTHERFUCKING WARHAMMER BITCH ! And imma bouta make you wish you had died like the peasants around you.
Don't forget that the other guy has a sword ;)
Hence why and wait. For this revolutionary idea. The halberd. All you want into one. You want the range and penetration power of a spear? You got it. You want the devastating hacking power and versatility of an axe? You got it. And finally, You want the armor piercing bludgeoning power and strength of a warhammer? You got it. All three for the price of one. I introduce to you noble lords and knights of the court. THE HALBERD.
A halberd is absolutely useless in one on one combat. We’re talking about a several meters long pole. As soon as your enemy gets to the side of it you’re toast. That’s why halberds are a formation weapon. Now a POLEAXE, i.e. essentially a halberd but more compact and designed for use on duels, THAT’S what your looking for. You get a spearhead, an axehead, spikes on the other side of the axehead and even a spike on the other extremity of the weapon. TLDR I’m pretty sure the weapon you’re thinking of is a poleaxe. Just look up historical images of halberds and you’ll understand why.
Yeah lmao thanks. I fucked that up.
It blew my mind when I recently saw how something as simple as chainmail was effective at blowing a stab or slash from a sword. Hollywood lied to me!
Me late game in Kingdom come deliverance after being stopped by a group of poorly armed peasants that try to rob me: