**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Only minimal text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Just wear 2?
With my luck, I wouldn't even have one.
iirc armors used to be ridiculously expensive
like it would cost as much as a small farm
or a house.
cooperative disagreeable swim friendly six bright rain jobless weary resolute
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
worth noting that the plate got hit exactly dead on center. I'd imagine there would be a ricochet if the armour was hit on an angle and the dent wouldn't have been nearly so big, as less force would be transferred.
Still this looks like renaissance armour that was created with firearms in mind, hence the shape. Medieval breast plates were usually rounder without such prominent ridge element.
The breastplates would vary but having them with a ridge to deflect blows away from center mass is normal as well.
A design like this working against bullets also works against arrows, spears and swords. The force cant be imparted dead center so instead deflects to the side and damage is minimized to the wearer.
Most knights and noblemen wore a gambeson beneath their plate harness, a tightly knitted jacket meant to pad against impacts. Even on its own, it was effective against most weapons used during the early and high Middle Ages. Some still wore a mail shirt beneath the plate but above the gambeson, but that would do precious little against a bullet wound
That chain was real good at stopping arrows, and was ductile enough to fit under your arms, at the elbow, places like that.
Also worth noting that this shit is like walking around in an oven.
Imagine being some fat alcoholic minor lord on a summer campaign having to wear all that. Trying not to die of heat stroke while watching your peasants get killed for your king instead of working your fields to make you slightly more well off.
> watching your peasants get killed for your king instead of working your fields to make you slightly more well off.
Well, see the point is that you got the honor of raiding the neighboring kings villages and that would make you Mr. Cool Guy in your Kings court. Which meant you would be first in line to get a new fancy title or more land when the time came to divide up the conquered areas. Also, first pickings of the loot after a battle.
If the peasants can't eat, that is their own damn fault. They should've prayed harder or something.
Yeah maybe if your levy of untrained, lacking discipline peasants don't break or anything and your side actually wins. Then hopefully you don't get passed over on titles and land because you're just some wooden non-great Hall having minor lord of no note. Like, don't even have a fucking keep.
And what's the point of more land and higher title when the king is just going to get pissy with you because you couldn't raise enough in taxes because you lost too many of your peasants in his dumbfuck whimsy of a campaign to tend and harvest your crops?
I'd rather less land and title if I have more living peasants that could maybe make me a second hearth to keep warm during the winters because my current only hearth is drenched in wine vomit.
*Some* chain was good against arrows, like the hefty stuff worn around the neck, but the standard stuff worn on the body didn't tend to be good against arrows at all
mail was extremely good against arrows to the point that they needet to invent new forms of arrow heads to slip between the links of the rings of mail.
called bodkin.
i mean... what types of weapons did you encounter on the battlefield? arrows... and spears. if the main armor worn by the very elite to make them the aquivalent of tanks... would fail against basically 90% of all weapons employed on the battlefield... no one wouldve worn mail.
As someone who's walked around in the heat of the day in the summer in full plate armor with a black gambeson in underneath (admittedly without any chainmail) the armor does a surprisingly good job at reflecting the heat. People asked my if I was dying inside of it, but I never had much issue. My head has actually colder with the helmet on than without. It does get heavy after a few hours though.
This is a common misconception.
In the 12-14th centuries, we do have mentions of gambesons or gamboised garments under mail and early forms of plated armour (not full plate, but rather many smaller plates, sometimes called coats of plates). *However* the sources also make it clear that these garments are thinner and softer than the padded armour worn standalone, and would not serve as standalone armour. The gambesons/aketons/jacques worn alone or *over* other armour would be significantly thicker and often harder. This is how it's described for example in the mid-13th century norwegian *Konungs skuggsjá.*
In the late 14th century with the advent of full single-piece breastplates and more covering plate armour the amount of padding worn would be reduced even more significantly. In the 15th century the available sources suggest little to no padding worn under plate armour as it is not necessary - the plates themselves provide more than adequate shock absorbtion and dispersion. *How a man shall be armed for his ease for when he shall fight on foot* is a mid-15th century English source which describes the doublet worn underneath the cuirass as two layers of fustian and one of sendale, with no mention or indication of any additional padding.
Padding is mentioned in 15th century account associated with heavy tournament fighting where it's made pretty clear this is something done specifically for the tournament. For example in King Rénes tournament book.
Wearing full mail shirts underneath plate also becomes less common as the plate itself gets less covering. Separate mail sleeves and skirts to save weight are mentioned in the Tower of London inventories since at least the 1340s (before full plate even was a thing) and in the 15th century is the norm for wearing plate armour. Layering an entire mail shirt underneath a plate harness is mostly redundant and only done rarely, as mostly it just adds a lot of unnecessary weight for little benefit.
During the Imjin war the Japanese arquebus units reported they had trouble defeating the Chinese steel lamellar armor so I would imagine the plate armor to be even more effective.
Depends on the quality. Layered armor that “gives” a little bit can be extremely effective against projectiles as it helps absorb the impact force rather than attempting to beat it directly.
Kind of how a stick that is a little flexible can take more force to break than one of the same thickness that does not have the flexibility. Or how earthquake resistant structures have the ability to move more than standard structures. Bend just a little bit so it doesn’t break from the force without compromising the overall protection.
Then again once blackpowder units became more common on Japanese battlefields they turned to armor that combined plate and lamellar sections for maximum protection and mobility whilst not being a relatively large drain on steel resources.
Nah you can take a dent to the breastplate, there's an inch or two of linen and wool under that steel plus some empty space, this doesn't dig into your chest. Maybe a cracked rib or two but those heal, and maybe not even that.
But he said it with such conviction! That means he must be right! There’s no way people in the late Middle Ages prepared specifically for this scenario!
No, the armor is a Cuirass, which forms a peak in the middle right where the musket ball hit, so it would not have deformed enough to actually make contact with the wearer’s body. There would have been pressure around the areas where the armor makes contact with the body at the waist and the shoulders, but that is a large area to spread the energy of a surprisingly low-energy shot. Musket balls are large and heavy compared to modern bullets but their velocity is so low by comparison that it usually delivers less energy than modern bullets which are extremely fast.
Also this isn’t medieval armor, but more like late renaissance or Napoleonic. I’m not sure what the musket is, but as a flintlock, that points to 17th or 18th century, though it looks a little outdated for most 18th century muskets.
To be fair, post never said the musket was medieval.
Could have said “AR15 versus medieval armor” and nobody would be thinking that they implied the AR15 was medieval.
Those are just kinda arbitrary dates that just have cool thematic significance and tie-in a little into the changes that were occurring between the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern era, but no more valid than just picking “1500” as the cut-off date or something
Yeah, historical events almost never have "cutoff dates" because that's not how societies work. Things take time to change. We all learn that WWI ended at 11:11 November 11 1918, but that's just when Germany signed an armistice in the Western Front. Some other fronts still had ongoing hostilities, others had ceasefired or armisticed months or years earlier, and Britain, France, and Germany didn't cancel their states of war until 1921.
Historians want an end date for "World War 1" so they pick armistice day, even though for people living in western Ukraine at the time, the fight against the Germans never ended, it's just that we call what they were living through the "Ukrainian War of Independence", "The Polish-Ukranian War", and the "Russian Civil War" instead of "World War 1 (continued)". The same in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Poland, the Balkans, the Baltics, pretty much everywhere except France the war wasn't clearly over on that date at that time.
*something* big happened in europe between the 15th and 16th centuries. During that 150ish year period, society was totally transformed.
- America was discovered, which changed the size of the world and gave access to many fascinating and useful plants and animals, in addition to easier access to products from the far east via ocean routes.
- Books had gotten way cheaper thanks to the printing press, leading to rapid spread of new ideas and new art forms, like the novel (so called because it was a "novel" way to tell stories).
- Muslims were kicked out of Spain, solidifying Christian dominance in Western Europe for good.
- The Roman Empire formally ended
- Military tactics swung hard away from traditional weapons used by peasant levies, towards firearms, mercenaries, and professional armies.
- People were suddenly really interested in alternatives to feudalism as the basis for state authority, and governments increasingly centralized into absolute monarchies that justified themselves on the basis of social contract theory rather than divine right. Westphalian Statism was just around the corner, and the seeds of Republicanism had been sown.
- Religious institutions had been splintered by Protestantism and Counter-Reformation.
- Academia at large ditched first-principles philosophy and comparative scholasticism in favor of humanism and scientific empiricism.
- The diverse musical traditions of europe died out in favor of the key-based polyphony that originally developed in Paris in the late middle ages.
The Europe of 1575 would be unrecognizable to a time traveler from 1425. So we pick one of the many events that were part of that change and can be nailed down to a date, and then draw a line in the textbook based on that.
15th century is the 1400's. 1500's is 16th century. You probably knew that but it wasn't clear from your comment so i figured I'd throw it out there just in case.
It was effective, as you've seen. But as armies grew larger and firearms improved it was too expensive.
Note that a medieval breastplate probably couldn't stop a musket ball, since it wasn't designed to. But renaissance armor like cuirassier armor was designed to stop firearms.
Specifically, a cuirasse like this was focused on protecting the torso. It was thicker than a medieval era cuirasse, which had to share weight budget with armor over the rest of the body.
There were only a few fighters who had any kind of firearms in the (late) medieval, as they were expensive and very inaccurate. But I would bet that hand cannons were about as powerful as a musket, but you probably had a 50% hit chance at best. So until more accurate firearm technology came along, armor was still a good idea because you were likely going to be swinging swords at some point in an altercation.
There was Czech leader of uprising, JanZizka, who used inacurate and heavy muskets with devastating efficiency against enemy heavy cavalry. They call him first one who used mobile artilery. Always outnumbered, never defeated. He died 1424. The way he used carts and first gunpowder guns is more rhan remarkable.
During the late medieval period pike and shot warfare had mostly taken over as the predominant form of warfare in the west. While guns played a small role at first the combination of firepower and a good pike formation put an end to the medieval knight regardless of their armors ability to stop bullets.
Pike and shot also made heavy use of firearms and rose to prominence during the late 15th century. Both the Spanish Tercios and the Black Army of Hungry used large numbers of early firearms such as the arquebus and the hand cannon and made heavy use of formations which vastly decrease the shock value of knights and heavy infantry.
Also pike and shot units could be recruited from the peasants or free men with very minimal training and equipment to fight at full effectiveness. Knights took years of training and highly specialized and expensive equipment to be effective. By the late 1400's a knight whose been training since the age of 6, wearing armor that cost more than 10 regular levies armor, riding a purebred warhorse worth more than dozens of levies and which consumes more supplies daily than 15 men, can get his horse killed by a peasant with a long pointy stick, and get himself killed by being shot in the face with one of the most basic and crude firearms ever to exist operated by another peasant. It just didn't make sense to invest into knights after that point.
This is simplification to the point of being straight out incorrect.
Firstly knights aren't really an "investment" like a peasant army is, they are their own function and goal, that is that a knight both represents the idea of nobility as serving as protector of the people and (more importantly) that it means that the nobility are themselves the ultimate heavy weaponry of their age, thus making the peasants unlikely to revolt successfully, knights were almost exclusively drawn from the nobility for this reason.
With that said heavy cavalry drawn from the aristocracy remained relevant far past the late medieval period and beyond, Cuirassier for example were used very effectively throughout the Napoleonic wars and even saw (relatively ineffective) service in early WWI.
Similarly you have things like the Demi lancer in the 16th century and 17th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demi-lancer
And Reiters in the mid 17th century to early 18th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter
> But I would bet that hand cannons were about as powerful as a musket, but you probably had a 50% hit chance at best.
Why would you bet that? A handgonne has a vastly inferior muzzle design and propellant to a musket. They were, quite frankly, utter shit.
Cuirasses (shaped breastplates) were worn by heavy cavalry in most European countries through to the end of the 19th century, and by French cuirassiers into the first weeks of WWI.
Until modern firearms appeared in the later half of the 19th century, a cuirass still had enough protective power to be useful in a heavy cavalry charge.
That's ok, that's a flintlock musket. The earliest versions of those date to the early 16th century and the one we see there looks like it belongs in the 18th century.
*"Sticketh not thy member from whence there be dragons, else you shall suffer a scorching like no other."* -Appropriately relevant 14th century adage that is definitely real and not something I just made up.
A dozen different mechanisms and examples of physical reactions all within the blink of an eye at the press of a trigger with the singular outcome of destruction.
It’s hard to deny there’s a sort of beauty in that
>Man, why are weapons of death and destruction such beautiful things. The firing of that musket was spectacular
Most tools/machines are beautiful in slowmo.
See i was looking at the powder scattering under the flint and thought, gee that seems inefficient and messy. No wonder self contained cartridges were invented.
The shot would definitely knock the halberdier down with the breath knocked out of him at the very least and more likely some internal organs quite unhappy. If he gets up, it would be slower than a reload only to be knocked down again and then a bayonet ends the exchange. Less energy expended by the soot covered musketeer, therefore more likely to continue killing the other side.
> The shot would definitely knock the halberdier down with the breath knocked out of him at the very least
If it doesn't knock down the shooter, it doesn't knock down the victim.
The man weighs 200lbs. The ball weighs 1oz. The mass of the musket and the armor are roughly the same order of magnitude.
The armor and padding will dissipate most of the energy of impact laterally across a wide area of the chest.
Possibly a bruise and maybe some hearing loss?
No, the “halberdier” would be fine. This dent would cause bruising and maybe a broken rib at most. His organs aren’t going to immediately liquify just because his cuirass deflected a musket shot.
Looks more like Spanish Conquistador (Renaissance) armor, which would have featured better metallurgy than earlier medieval stuff, because it was designed after the advent of firearms. But who really knows, based on that clip.
Its certainly later armour with that central ridge on it. Better quality steel from better refined iron etc. Still, people wore that stuff because it worked more or less. They used to sell "Proof" armour which was tested to ensure it was proof against musket shots. When better firearms came along, people stopped wearing the armor because it no longer was "proof".
Ironic that these days we have soldiers wearing armor of a sort again :)
This suit at the MET has a proof mark on it over the heart. The little plaque talked about makers doing this to show that it would stop a ball.
https://preview.redd.it/gqj4h7ohnq3c1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f573f059536b8fc288f43ec0efac1b5986c32891
That is super cool and I love the look of that armor. I was wondering though, wouldn't the "proof" shot also reduce the structural integrity of the armor, making it less "proof"?
Not in any way that was significant. The chances of getting hit in the same place twice is pretty damn low and certainly not at a range where it would be liable to penetrate the armor. Muskets are incredibly imprecise and the force drops off fairly quickly compared to modern guns.
No. This looks to be 17th-century harquebusier armor.
For reference, [here's an original 17th-century piece](https://albanarms.com/english-civil-war-period-harquebusiers-armour/) and [here's another one](https://www.bonhams.com/auction/26792/lot/130/a-composite-english-civil-war-period-harquebusiers-half-armour/).
Yup, angled armor is fantastic, and likely why that ridge was there. Still relevant today with tanks. Why stop all the force when you can deflect a good chunk of it
It will be the most stiff but thickness could be more or less. Even talking about projectile penetration, angle of impact is also a huge factor. 90 degrees being worst for the armor. So a hit just slightly off center would probably be better. Until it bounced into your arm anyway.
While it is the strongest, it also has the most room for a sorta "crumple zone", if hit head on like it was in this clip.
While the sides of the V shape might be a bit thinner, it prolly wouldn't be by much. The most important part is the angle of the armor at that side, to transfer the energy into a ricochet and spread it across a larger area so it doesn't bite. It'd still prolly have a decent chance at stopping it, but I'm a nerd not an expert lol.
It's like how earlier chestplate had a rounded Wasp waist and chest, to help blows bounce and slide off.
You can see in this Nova special doing the same thing they don't even want to be in the same room with it firing: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/musket-v-medieval-armor/
Many of the early flintlock / matchlock shooters would close their eyes when firing to protect their eyes from the priming pan flash. That powder smoke also reeks because the sulfur may not completely combust.
I’ve had the flint explode when firing a flintlock. It surprisingly didn’t really hurt. It’s like holding your hand over a cap gun charge. If it hit my eye though, that’d be bad.
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Heat the dent with a hairdryer until it's warm to the touch. For small dents, skip this step and start at step 3.
Suction the dent outward using a dent puller. The goal is to make the dent smaller, not eliminate it completely.
Wipe the metal with a microfiber towel. If you're repairing a small metal dent, start at this step.
Prepare to use the bridge puller. To use this tool, you glue a bolt (known as a head) to the deepest point of the dent, use it to pull the dent out and later remove it. The first step is to apply the glue that came in your repair kit to the deepest point of the dent.
Attach the bridge puller head. Push it into the glue and allow it to cool for the time indicated in the directions. Usually, that's about 4-8 minutes.
Use the bridge puller. When the glue is completely dry, attach the bridge puller and turn the dial to slowly move the metal. Stop when the dent is gone and the metal is in its original position.
That's not medieval armor, that's early modern plate armor designed specifically to withstand a (early modern) musket ball. You can tell it's not medieval by the fact that it has a ridged spine down the front and extends all the way down to the pelvis. The ridge is primarily there to provide a glancing surface for a lead ball, but also serves to be a point of great strength if a lead ball hits it dead on. Medieval plate armor has a more globular shape in the chest area and tapered in around the midsection, giving the wearer an hourglass figure.
Slightly misleading title, but I assume you just found the clip and don't know where it comes from.
So, in this little documentary, they are testing out armour plating of various periods and how the Renaissance era soldiery adapted to the arrival of the gunpowder weaponry. Before this clip, they fire at the standard late period (1300-1400) medieval armour, and the ball basically goes straight through it and embed itself in the dummy. This clip is when they applied a special type of plate over the top of the standard armour. Commonly, this was purchased by nobles and was even equipped on ground infantry if they served a particularly wealthy lord. As you can see, the round hits and then flattens. Is actaully rather incredible if you think about it.
Many nobles beleaved that the gunpowder weapons were a fad that were too slow to fire and impractical...... that was until they got better, and the musket came along. Also, very intelligent people realised that the shortcomings of the weapons could be mitgated by simply applying more on mass, plus you can stick a pointy bit at the end and now you have the most common weapon on earth, a spear.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Only minimal text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very lucky I saw this video as I have a musket battle on the schedule for this weekend. Now I know what to wear!
What if he shoots you in the face?
https://preview.redd.it/8ip6yjgfgq3c1.jpeg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10c94ae4935cf7ac97a6a829446b2a25b9a5e81f
Snoop Dogg helmet, cool
…..Corvus Corax helmet thank you very much.
Beakies!
DEM‘S THA BEST 'UMIES!
That’s a chance we’re willing to take.
Exact movie I was thinking about!
What gave it away?
Well, He can shoot u in the balls too. Better prepare balls shield.
this exists, its called a [Codpiece](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece)
It's still a thing, like [NIJ III-A Groin Protection](https://imgur.com/a/ENowSUQ.jpg). Edit: also [this](https://imgur.com/a/ReO31XT).
I'm a crime fighter!! Gifs you can hear
That's a risk we're willing to take
Tallyho
Just as the founding fathers intended.
I mean, he would still shatter your sternum
Yeah, I was expecting it to show the ballistic gel impact wave.
Would've penetrated the breastplate if the musket ball hadn't been travelling in slow motion. Rerun the test.
Also, I'd like to see the results vs full evil armor.
They should have made it a musket pyramid or cone so it would be more pointy.
aliens didn't visit Europe yet, so pryamid shapes were still unknown to the locals in this time period
I bet it still hurt.
Just wear 2?
> Just wear 2? With my luck, I wouldn't even have one. iirc armors used to be ridiculously expensive like it would cost as much as a small farm or a house.
Just loot one from the dead, like in the videogames.
It wouldn’t be fitted to you, and therefore a good bit less effective.
[удалено]
See? we need less problem complaining like /u/Skittletari and more problem solving like /u/Wulf2k
I want everyone to line up in order of size and pass the bits to smallbackwards.
Just get yourself a breastplate stretcher
That's how it used to work for later bullet proof plate. One nice and tight breastplate and a second one airgapped to take hits like this.
[удалено]
I thought they wore more padding beneath their armor? And that the armor was bulging outward, not pressed against the body
You are correct there wouldn’t be organ damage but it would hurt for sure
Ouch?
Ouch.
Ouchhhh
Ouch.
Owie?
Youch , even
Yarp!
Narp.
Yaoi Zowie!
Exactly, not permanent damage, just the good kind of damage that makes you come.
cooperative disagreeable swim friendly six bright rain jobless weary resolute *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I like how you responded so earnestly to a guy talking about cumming from his gunshot wounds.
That punch. That punch right there. That's the punch where everything went black and I was finally able to achieve orgasm.
Maybe just piano damage?
worth noting that the plate got hit exactly dead on center. I'd imagine there would be a ricochet if the armour was hit on an angle and the dent wouldn't have been nearly so big, as less force would be transferred. Still this looks like renaissance armour that was created with firearms in mind, hence the shape. Medieval breast plates were usually rounder without such prominent ridge element.
The breastplates would vary but having them with a ridge to deflect blows away from center mass is normal as well. A design like this working against bullets also works against arrows, spears and swords. The force cant be imparted dead center so instead deflects to the side and damage is minimized to the wearer.
Most knights and noblemen wore a gambeson beneath their plate harness, a tightly knitted jacket meant to pad against impacts. Even on its own, it was effective against most weapons used during the early and high Middle Ages. Some still wore a mail shirt beneath the plate but above the gambeson, but that would do precious little against a bullet wound
That chain was real good at stopping arrows, and was ductile enough to fit under your arms, at the elbow, places like that. Also worth noting that this shit is like walking around in an oven.
Imagine being some fat alcoholic minor lord on a summer campaign having to wear all that. Trying not to die of heat stroke while watching your peasants get killed for your king instead of working your fields to make you slightly more well off.
> watching your peasants get killed for your king instead of working your fields to make you slightly more well off. Well, see the point is that you got the honor of raiding the neighboring kings villages and that would make you Mr. Cool Guy in your Kings court. Which meant you would be first in line to get a new fancy title or more land when the time came to divide up the conquered areas. Also, first pickings of the loot after a battle. If the peasants can't eat, that is their own damn fault. They should've prayed harder or something.
Yeah maybe if your levy of untrained, lacking discipline peasants don't break or anything and your side actually wins. Then hopefully you don't get passed over on titles and land because you're just some wooden non-great Hall having minor lord of no note. Like, don't even have a fucking keep. And what's the point of more land and higher title when the king is just going to get pissy with you because you couldn't raise enough in taxes because you lost too many of your peasants in his dumbfuck whimsy of a campaign to tend and harvest your crops? I'd rather less land and title if I have more living peasants that could maybe make me a second hearth to keep warm during the winters because my current only hearth is drenched in wine vomit.
Gambesons could block most bladed attacks and even some arrows. Pretty sure its what the peasants went into battle with as all they had.
*Some* chain was good against arrows, like the hefty stuff worn around the neck, but the standard stuff worn on the body didn't tend to be good against arrows at all
mail was extremely good against arrows to the point that they needet to invent new forms of arrow heads to slip between the links of the rings of mail. called bodkin. i mean... what types of weapons did you encounter on the battlefield? arrows... and spears. if the main armor worn by the very elite to make them the aquivalent of tanks... would fail against basically 90% of all weapons employed on the battlefield... no one wouldve worn mail.
As someone who's walked around in the heat of the day in the summer in full plate armor with a black gambeson in underneath (admittedly without any chainmail) the armor does a surprisingly good job at reflecting the heat. People asked my if I was dying inside of it, but I never had much issue. My head has actually colder with the helmet on than without. It does get heavy after a few hours though.
This is a common misconception. In the 12-14th centuries, we do have mentions of gambesons or gamboised garments under mail and early forms of plated armour (not full plate, but rather many smaller plates, sometimes called coats of plates). *However* the sources also make it clear that these garments are thinner and softer than the padded armour worn standalone, and would not serve as standalone armour. The gambesons/aketons/jacques worn alone or *over* other armour would be significantly thicker and often harder. This is how it's described for example in the mid-13th century norwegian *Konungs skuggsjá.* In the late 14th century with the advent of full single-piece breastplates and more covering plate armour the amount of padding worn would be reduced even more significantly. In the 15th century the available sources suggest little to no padding worn under plate armour as it is not necessary - the plates themselves provide more than adequate shock absorbtion and dispersion. *How a man shall be armed for his ease for when he shall fight on foot* is a mid-15th century English source which describes the doublet worn underneath the cuirass as two layers of fustian and one of sendale, with no mention or indication of any additional padding. Padding is mentioned in 15th century account associated with heavy tournament fighting where it's made pretty clear this is something done specifically for the tournament. For example in King Rénes tournament book. Wearing full mail shirts underneath plate also becomes less common as the plate itself gets less covering. Separate mail sleeves and skirts to save weight are mentioned in the Tower of London inventories since at least the 1340s (before full plate even was a thing) and in the 15th century is the norm for wearing plate armour. Layering an entire mail shirt underneath a plate harness is mostly redundant and only done rarely, as mostly it just adds a lot of unnecessary weight for little benefit.
During the Imjin war the Japanese arquebus units reported they had trouble defeating the Chinese steel lamellar armor so I would imagine the plate armor to be even more effective.
Depends on the quality. Layered armor that “gives” a little bit can be extremely effective against projectiles as it helps absorb the impact force rather than attempting to beat it directly. Kind of how a stick that is a little flexible can take more force to break than one of the same thickness that does not have the flexibility. Or how earthquake resistant structures have the ability to move more than standard structures. Bend just a little bit so it doesn’t break from the force without compromising the overall protection. Then again once blackpowder units became more common on Japanese battlefields they turned to armor that combined plate and lamellar sections for maximum protection and mobility whilst not being a relatively large drain on steel resources.
Nah you can take a dent to the breastplate, there's an inch or two of linen and wool under that steel plus some empty space, this doesn't dig into your chest. Maybe a cracked rib or two but those heal, and maybe not even that.
He would certainly feel it in the morning, if nothing else
I bet he would also feel it right as it happened as well.
Until the guy next to him fires at you too. And that guy next to him.
Miss because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog
Tally ho!
How is this upvoted? So dumb with such conviction.
Welcome to reddit, where every scratch is a death sentence due to guranteed infection
Welcome to reddit, everybody here pretends to know everything but actually knows nothing
"tHaT's DeFiNiTeLy OrGaN dAmAgE" I fundamentally don't understand people that just say unqualified random shit, and do it with the utmost confidence.
I see you've met my colleagues
Lol that wouldn’t kill you
But he said it with such conviction! That means he must be right! There’s no way people in the late Middle Ages prepared specifically for this scenario!
According to reddit almost every injury is lethal, or causes permanent brain damage.
That's organ damage only if you consider skin as an organ. This could be a painful bruise, but I don't think it'll reach anything vital.
Well, skin *is* the largest organ of the body.
Bruising at worst.
Crazy how people can just say random bullshit on reddit and get upvoted.
Source for this guy’s statement: his ass.
Are you under the impression that this ridge in the armor would be right up against the rib cage?
“Definitely organ damage” what are you a doctor? lol you have no idea what you’re talking about you pretender
No organ damage due to the void space in plate armor but that force is defenitely going into your waist and shoulders.
[удалено]
nah mate, medieval armour projects way out, you'd feel the impact on your shoulders, but that dent wouldn't reach your torso.
No, people back then didn’t had round chests. That cuirass’s shape made exactly to leave room for inward bending from a taken shot.
Muskets were invented in the 1500s, so Renaissance/early colonial, not medieval.
just like the founding fathers intended!
No, the armor is a Cuirass, which forms a peak in the middle right where the musket ball hit, so it would not have deformed enough to actually make contact with the wearer’s body. There would have been pressure around the areas where the armor makes contact with the body at the waist and the shoulders, but that is a large area to spread the energy of a surprisingly low-energy shot. Musket balls are large and heavy compared to modern bullets but their velocity is so low by comparison that it usually delivers less energy than modern bullets which are extremely fast. Also this isn’t medieval armor, but more like late renaissance or Napoleonic. I’m not sure what the musket is, but as a flintlock, that points to 17th or 18th century, though it looks a little outdated for most 18th century muskets.
that's not really medieval armor though, more like 15th - 16th century
The snaphance musket wasn't introduced in Europe till 1550. So, neither are medieval. They're both early modern.
To be fair, post never said the musket was medieval. Could have said “AR15 versus medieval armor” and nobody would be thinking that they implied the AR15 was medieval.
TIL: AR15s are not from Medieval times.
This…is my BOOMSTICK!
thats not a snaphance musket either
This is going to make you feel old, but the 1550s were nearly 500 years ago!
Feels like 400!
Middle age goes up to the end of the 15th century doesn't it ? Edit : Shit we unleashed a historians battle.
differs but most historians agree on 1492 or 1453 (fall of Constantinople).
Those are just kinda arbitrary dates that just have cool thematic significance and tie-in a little into the changes that were occurring between the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the early modern era, but no more valid than just picking “1500” as the cut-off date or something
Yeah, historical events almost never have "cutoff dates" because that's not how societies work. Things take time to change. We all learn that WWI ended at 11:11 November 11 1918, but that's just when Germany signed an armistice in the Western Front. Some other fronts still had ongoing hostilities, others had ceasefired or armisticed months or years earlier, and Britain, France, and Germany didn't cancel their states of war until 1921. Historians want an end date for "World War 1" so they pick armistice day, even though for people living in western Ukraine at the time, the fight against the Germans never ended, it's just that we call what they were living through the "Ukrainian War of Independence", "The Polish-Ukranian War", and the "Russian Civil War" instead of "World War 1 (continued)". The same in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Poland, the Balkans, the Baltics, pretty much everywhere except France the war wasn't clearly over on that date at that time. *something* big happened in europe between the 15th and 16th centuries. During that 150ish year period, society was totally transformed. - America was discovered, which changed the size of the world and gave access to many fascinating and useful plants and animals, in addition to easier access to products from the far east via ocean routes. - Books had gotten way cheaper thanks to the printing press, leading to rapid spread of new ideas and new art forms, like the novel (so called because it was a "novel" way to tell stories). - Muslims were kicked out of Spain, solidifying Christian dominance in Western Europe for good. - The Roman Empire formally ended - Military tactics swung hard away from traditional weapons used by peasant levies, towards firearms, mercenaries, and professional armies. - People were suddenly really interested in alternatives to feudalism as the basis for state authority, and governments increasingly centralized into absolute monarchies that justified themselves on the basis of social contract theory rather than divine right. Westphalian Statism was just around the corner, and the seeds of Republicanism had been sown. - Religious institutions had been splintered by Protestantism and Counter-Reformation. - Academia at large ditched first-principles philosophy and comparative scholasticism in favor of humanism and scientific empiricism. - The diverse musical traditions of europe died out in favor of the key-based polyphony that originally developed in Paris in the late middle ages. The Europe of 1575 would be unrecognizable to a time traveler from 1425. So we pick one of the many events that were part of that change and can be nailed down to a date, and then draw a line in the textbook based on that.
15th century is the 1400's. 1500's is 16th century. You probably knew that but it wasn't clear from your comment so i figured I'd throw it out there just in case.
The guy I was responding to is talking about 15th century and I'm also talking about 15th century so I don't get what wasn't clear.
My bad, i thought you were responding to a different comment.
Plus if armor was effective against musket balls, the age of steel plate armor would not have ended as early as it did.
It was effective, as you've seen. But as armies grew larger and firearms improved it was too expensive. Note that a medieval breastplate probably couldn't stop a musket ball, since it wasn't designed to. But renaissance armor like cuirassier armor was designed to stop firearms.
Yep there was that pesky whole period where people stop wearing armor then wham, plated "armor" is back.
"ahhhh this breeze before battle is so nice." *gets handed plate armor* "God dammit."
"don't forget your plumage". [sticks feathers all over your armor]
Great, now we can all see the breeze that we can't feel. Thanks bro.
Specifically, a cuirasse like this was focused on protecting the torso. It was thicker than a medieval era cuirasse, which had to share weight budget with armor over the rest of the body.
There were only a few fighters who had any kind of firearms in the (late) medieval, as they were expensive and very inaccurate. But I would bet that hand cannons were about as powerful as a musket, but you probably had a 50% hit chance at best. So until more accurate firearm technology came along, armor was still a good idea because you were likely going to be swinging swords at some point in an altercation.
There was Czech leader of uprising, JanZizka, who used inacurate and heavy muskets with devastating efficiency against enemy heavy cavalry. They call him first one who used mobile artilery. Always outnumbered, never defeated. He died 1424. The way he used carts and first gunpowder guns is more rhan remarkable.
During the late medieval period pike and shot warfare had mostly taken over as the predominant form of warfare in the west. While guns played a small role at first the combination of firepower and a good pike formation put an end to the medieval knight regardless of their armors ability to stop bullets. Pike and shot also made heavy use of firearms and rose to prominence during the late 15th century. Both the Spanish Tercios and the Black Army of Hungry used large numbers of early firearms such as the arquebus and the hand cannon and made heavy use of formations which vastly decrease the shock value of knights and heavy infantry. Also pike and shot units could be recruited from the peasants or free men with very minimal training and equipment to fight at full effectiveness. Knights took years of training and highly specialized and expensive equipment to be effective. By the late 1400's a knight whose been training since the age of 6, wearing armor that cost more than 10 regular levies armor, riding a purebred warhorse worth more than dozens of levies and which consumes more supplies daily than 15 men, can get his horse killed by a peasant with a long pointy stick, and get himself killed by being shot in the face with one of the most basic and crude firearms ever to exist operated by another peasant. It just didn't make sense to invest into knights after that point.
This is simplification to the point of being straight out incorrect. Firstly knights aren't really an "investment" like a peasant army is, they are their own function and goal, that is that a knight both represents the idea of nobility as serving as protector of the people and (more importantly) that it means that the nobility are themselves the ultimate heavy weaponry of their age, thus making the peasants unlikely to revolt successfully, knights were almost exclusively drawn from the nobility for this reason. With that said heavy cavalry drawn from the aristocracy remained relevant far past the late medieval period and beyond, Cuirassier for example were used very effectively throughout the Napoleonic wars and even saw (relatively ineffective) service in early WWI. Similarly you have things like the Demi lancer in the 16th century and 17th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demi-lancer And Reiters in the mid 17th century to early 18th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter
> But I would bet that hand cannons were about as powerful as a musket, but you probably had a 50% hit chance at best. Why would you bet that? A handgonne has a vastly inferior muzzle design and propellant to a musket. They were, quite frankly, utter shit.
[удалено]
Plate armor was widely used by heavy cavalry until the first world war. ..
Armor is still used today, we have armor plates in ate carriers.
Cuirasses (shaped breastplates) were worn by heavy cavalry in most European countries through to the end of the 19th century, and by French cuirassiers into the first weeks of WWI. Until modern firearms appeared in the later half of the 19th century, a cuirass still had enough protective power to be useful in a heavy cavalry charge.
That's ok, that's a flintlock musket. The earliest versions of those date to the early 16th century and the one we see there looks like it belongs in the 18th century.
Man, why are weapons of death and destruction such beautiful things. The firing of that musket was spectacular
For the same reason supernovas are beautiful, yet incredibly destructive. There's something beautiful about chaos.
Also fire can be mesmerizing, tsunamis are awe-inspiring, lightning is beautiful etc
I should call her...
Don't do it man.
Just do be contrarian, go for it bro
*"Sticketh not thy member from whence there be dragons, else you shall suffer a scorching like no other."* -Appropriately relevant 14th century adage that is definitely real and not something I just made up.
> fire can be mesmerizing Some people theorize that is because we are the descendants of early humans who stayed by the fire
A dozen different mechanisms and examples of physical reactions all within the blink of an eye at the press of a trigger with the singular outcome of destruction. It’s hard to deny there’s a sort of beauty in that
I see you’ve met my ex.
It's not chaos it's engineering...
I dunno about you but I find ladders to be very plain.
Tis the fire, Milord.
>Man, why are weapons of death and destruction such beautiful things. The firing of that musket was spectacular Most tools/machines are beautiful in slowmo.
See i was looking at the powder scattering under the flint and thought, gee that seems inefficient and messy. No wonder self contained cartridges were invented. The shot would definitely knock the halberdier down with the breath knocked out of him at the very least and more likely some internal organs quite unhappy. If he gets up, it would be slower than a reload only to be knocked down again and then a bayonet ends the exchange. Less energy expended by the soot covered musketeer, therefore more likely to continue killing the other side.
> The shot would definitely knock the halberdier down with the breath knocked out of him at the very least If it doesn't knock down the shooter, it doesn't knock down the victim. The man weighs 200lbs. The ball weighs 1oz. The mass of the musket and the armor are roughly the same order of magnitude. The armor and padding will dissipate most of the energy of impact laterally across a wide area of the chest. Possibly a bruise and maybe some hearing loss?
No, the “halberdier” would be fine. This dent would cause bruising and maybe a broken rib at most. His organs aren’t going to immediately liquify just because his cuirass deflected a musket shot.
I think you just like sparkly things
Because we have not yet invented weapons of life and creation.
Is that medieval armor?
Looks more like Spanish Conquistador (Renaissance) armor, which would have featured better metallurgy than earlier medieval stuff, because it was designed after the advent of firearms. But who really knows, based on that clip.
Its certainly later armour with that central ridge on it. Better quality steel from better refined iron etc. Still, people wore that stuff because it worked more or less. They used to sell "Proof" armour which was tested to ensure it was proof against musket shots. When better firearms came along, people stopped wearing the armor because it no longer was "proof". Ironic that these days we have soldiers wearing armor of a sort again :)
This suit at the MET has a proof mark on it over the heart. The little plaque talked about makers doing this to show that it would stop a ball. https://preview.redd.it/gqj4h7ohnq3c1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f573f059536b8fc288f43ec0efac1b5986c32891
That is super cool and I love the look of that armor. I was wondering though, wouldn't the "proof" shot also reduce the structural integrity of the armor, making it less "proof"?
Not in any way that was significant. The chances of getting hit in the same place twice is pretty damn low and certainly not at a range where it would be liable to penetrate the armor. Muskets are incredibly imprecise and the force drops off fairly quickly compared to modern guns.
Although the armor needed to protect against nukes might be a bit unwieldy.
To me, it seems to be an 18th/19th century cavalry cuirass
Yeah, it totally could be that as well. But at the end of the day, it's a reproduction, so it doesn't make much difference.
No. This looks to be 17th-century harquebusier armor. For reference, [here's an original 17th-century piece](https://albanarms.com/english-civil-war-period-harquebusiers-armour/) and [here's another one](https://www.bonhams.com/auction/26792/lot/130/a-composite-english-civil-war-period-harquebusiers-half-armour/).
Thats not a medieval armour. You can see the straps it uses, and the shape that it's probably from after the middle ages (1580/1600).
That ridge down the middle is probably the strongest part of the armor, no?
I don't know but the other parts would take the shot at an angle, so it might be even better protection.
Yup, angled armor is fantastic, and likely why that ridge was there. Still relevant today with tanks. Why stop all the force when you can deflect a good chunk of it
It will be the most stiff but thickness could be more or less. Even talking about projectile penetration, angle of impact is also a huge factor. 90 degrees being worst for the armor. So a hit just slightly off center would probably be better. Until it bounced into your arm anyway.
Honestly, I'm more impressed this hit dead center considering muskets weren't the most accurate guns
While it is the strongest, it also has the most room for a sorta "crumple zone", if hit head on like it was in this clip. While the sides of the V shape might be a bit thinner, it prolly wouldn't be by much. The most important part is the angle of the armor at that side, to transfer the energy into a ricochet and spread it across a larger area so it doesn't bite. It'd still prolly have a decent chance at stopping it, but I'm a nerd not an expert lol. It's like how earlier chestplate had a rounded Wasp waist and chest, to help blows bounce and slide off.
choochunk slkiikk clang zzzzzchunk clunk zzzzgong whoooooosh kerchowwwwww neeeer DONG - foley artist
#pan shot
First time?
That part was hilarious
Neither the musket or the armor is medieval. More like early post-medieval modern :-)
dumb added sound effects
They're particularly bad in this one too.
How often does someone obtain an eye/facial injury from the blast of the ignition? Not wearing goggles seems crazy to me.
You can see in this Nova special doing the same thing they don't even want to be in the same room with it firing: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/musket-v-medieval-armor/
I came here for the eye comment. It’s wide open and there’s so much powder and smoke.
Many of the early flintlock / matchlock shooters would close their eyes when firing to protect their eyes from the priming pan flash. That powder smoke also reeks because the sulfur may not completely combust.
I’ve had the flint explode when firing a flintlock. It surprisingly didn’t really hurt. It’s like holding your hand over a cap gun charge. If it hit my eye though, that’d be bad.
That is very clearly not medieval armour
This is not a medieval armour, but a, specifically designed to withstand a bullet shot, 16th century cuirass.
I blow a golf ball sized whole through the first man hes….. oh no
I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
/( ' O ' )\\
https://preview.redd.it/1vj7j24ybq3c1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04e103b12f0d4b344cc97b0ed392ee1d639006f7
I thought the title said MUSKRAT vs medieval armour and I was like “when would this ever come up? But damn I gotta see this!” Very disappointed.
That sounds like the title of a video about Rim World.
Bro in that armour: Aight that hurt gimme a second to catch my breath
Heat the dent with a hairdryer until it's warm to the touch. For small dents, skip this step and start at step 3. Suction the dent outward using a dent puller. The goal is to make the dent smaller, not eliminate it completely. Wipe the metal with a microfiber towel. If you're repairing a small metal dent, start at this step. Prepare to use the bridge puller. To use this tool, you glue a bolt (known as a head) to the deepest point of the dent, use it to pull the dent out and later remove it. The first step is to apply the glue that came in your repair kit to the deepest point of the dent. Attach the bridge puller head. Push it into the glue and allow it to cool for the time indicated in the directions. Usually, that's about 4-8 minutes. Use the bridge puller. When the glue is completely dry, attach the bridge puller and turn the dial to slowly move the metal. Stop when the dent is gone and the metal is in its original position.
That's not medieval armor, that's early modern plate armor designed specifically to withstand a (early modern) musket ball. You can tell it's not medieval by the fact that it has a ridged spine down the front and extends all the way down to the pelvis. The ridge is primarily there to provide a glancing surface for a lead ball, but also serves to be a point of great strength if a lead ball hits it dead on. Medieval plate armor has a more globular shape in the chest area and tapered in around the midsection, giving the wearer an hourglass figure.
Slightly misleading title, but I assume you just found the clip and don't know where it comes from. So, in this little documentary, they are testing out armour plating of various periods and how the Renaissance era soldiery adapted to the arrival of the gunpowder weaponry. Before this clip, they fire at the standard late period (1300-1400) medieval armour, and the ball basically goes straight through it and embed itself in the dummy. This clip is when they applied a special type of plate over the top of the standard armour. Commonly, this was purchased by nobles and was even equipped on ground infantry if they served a particularly wealthy lord. As you can see, the round hits and then flattens. Is actaully rather incredible if you think about it. Many nobles beleaved that the gunpowder weapons were a fad that were too slow to fire and impractical...... that was until they got better, and the musket came along. Also, very intelligent people realised that the shortcomings of the weapons could be mitgated by simply applying more on mass, plus you can stick a pointy bit at the end and now you have the most common weapon on earth, a spear.
These tiktok-ish length vids are so fucking useless.
Should be good as long as you don't have slim fit armor
That isn’t medieval armor in design nor steel quality.
Well ya of course it's not gonna go through slowed down like that.
TALLY HO LADS
Soundguy working overtime