A few points about gambesons.
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- A self indulgent video in which I ramble incoherently while sewing bits of plant to other bits of plant using petroleum distillate which is emulating hamstrings, before repeatedly bayoneting various plant bits.
Link to the shirt making article.
www.ribevikingecenter.dk/medi...
Link to good tanning book. I pronounced his name wrong though. Oops. Sorry.
www.amazon.ca/North-American-...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is a self indulgent video.
Self indulgence is when you drink liquor that is yourself.
Liquor is a beverage made from the feces of yeast.
Feces are food that is no longer food.
Yeast is a stupid creature that eats sugar and drowns in feces.
Food is what you eat.
Eating is obtaining fuel that we might live.
Live is when a video is happening as you watch it.
Video is pictures that move.
Pictures are two dimensional representations of vision.
Dimensions are up and down.
Up is the sky.
The sky is up.
Down is the earth.
The earth is lava and iron and rock and dead things and living things and feces and water.
Rock is stone.
If you ain't rock and stone, you ain't coming home.
Home is where the heart is set in stone.
The heart is a pump.
A pump moves water.
Water is life.
Lava is rock that is melted.
Iron is rock that is magnetic.
Dead things are machines that no longer function.
Melted is when a rock becomes water.
Magnetic is when two things are drawn together.
Life is when machines function.
Machines are built for a task.
Tasks are what we do to pass the time while we wait for Godot.
Time is a concept.
Concepts are theoretical.
Theories are views on the world.
Views are what you see.
The world is the earth.
The sea is water and salt and fish.
Salt is rock that melts.
Fish are swimming machines.
Godot is a concept 'round which we measure our pain.
Pain is how your body communicates with you.
A body is a collection of magnetic, chemical and electrical impulses.
Chemicals are everything.
Electricity is light that hurts cold.
Light is the absence of dark.
Dark is the absence of light.
Cold is the absence of heat.
Heat is that which makes things melt.
Things are not necessarily machines.
You are a walking thinking machine.
Walking is how machines move on land.
Land is the earth.
Movement is the act of changing position.
Acting is when you pretend.
Pretend is a theory that is not truth.
The truth is that which is out there.
Position is where you are now.
Change is inevitable.
So it goes...
Cheers! Though I have a few thoughts on the video and the conclusions drawn:
1) While I can't speak with any authority on European gambeson construction, I get the impression that it's elaboration was anything but standardized; fully layered, partially layered blends with loose filling, several layers of loose filling between quilted layer cloth, etc. All offering varying degrees of protection to the user within a wide range of monetary availability, not to mention material variability (wool, linen, cotton, etc.). What's more, cost (in money and time) may itself only be an issue within specific European contexts.
Mesoamericans traded in cotton extensively, it’s weaving being a common domestic duty for women, as basic and essential as feeding their families; so extensive was the trade that blankets have been considered a standard measurement of currency. Africans and Middle Easterners also used quilted armor extensively, so I’d imagine the cost of such a given armor was mostly circumstantial.
2) I think you miscalculated the weight of your garment because there is no way a 48 layered gambeson is weighing 32 pounds. I’ve constructed a 32 layered sleeved Ichcahuipilli that reaches my thighs and currently weighs around 8 pounds. I’m aware linen is heavier than cotton but surely the difference isn’t so tremendous that it would triple the weight of an equally layered garment?
Otherwise it’s an interesting note on the differences of the material, probably accounting for the heat differences as well (mine isn’t particularly hot, though not especially comfortable on a summer day).
3) This reddit post elaborates on the protective value of the gambeson and I think it’s worth checking out:
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7a36kj/just_how_effective_were_gambesons_on_a/
An issue I have with the video and indeed most armor tests on CZcams is that I think the demonstration at the end can be a fair bit misleading. A soldier will very rarely confront a polearm at full force, in a stationary manner, against a hard place. It's commonality speaks to it's effectiveness, and a few viewers might get the impression that it may as well have been useless.
I'd say the mass of a given textile garment can change drastically just by the type of fabric used alone. I wouldn't be surprised if a Ten-layered garment made from a thick canvas could very likely weight twice as much, if not more so, than a similar garment made from ten layers of a thinner woven fabric. (Just by comparing ~400-500 gsm canvas versus say a lighter ~180-200 gsm linen fabric)
To cut a long story short, I agree.
@@thejackinati2759 Also there's rain. Wet fabric can be quite a bit heavier than dry.
So many people Praise this armor for being so overly effective that steel doesn't make sense to wear
Cool video putting that to the test
Good to know if I put on all my shirts, someone with a spear can still kill me. Seems I need some more shirts. Great video, I thoughtly enjoyed the information and presentation!
Need something to go with it.
Try including a few layers of good silk shirts. Not sure how many, as it probably depends a lot on how thick the shirt is, and how tight the weave is.
I found the armor weights to be interesting, because modern body armor is similar in weight. A medium sized IOTV with kevlar vest and ceramic plates is 35 lbs and stops a lot of fragments and full sized rifle bullets. These ancient body armors were similar in weight.
Well, I don't see why it wouldn't. The human body is a constant. So it stands to reason that there would be similarities.
There are many other videos by other channels regarding gambesons/padded armor. However, yours is definitely one of the more nuanced ones. Like any type of armor type, textile armors have their advantages and disadvantages and without a doubt varied in performance and affordability depending on factors such as climate, weaponry, access to materials, etc. To quote Matt Easton, "Context!"
Something history youtubers are occasionally guilty of, particularly small channels, is repeating eachother. As most of my subscribers are probably subscribed to the big channels, I don't see the point in repeating what has already been said, unless I have something unique to add.
But I'll confess, my primary motive was impure, a commenter ticked me off by saying, "why would anyone use wooden armor when you could just use gambeson?"
This is an armor that I find silly looking, and that I'm sick of hearing praised to the heavens. I wanted to take it down a notch. Though in hindsight I should have been a little more positive.
Don't worry about being more positive about gambesons. Shadiversity has beaten that horse to death, lol
Like a microscope,we may only see a few microbes of the thousand that populate even the smallest surfaces,but we give more importance to those simply because we can see them. For this reason we fail to see the bigger picture and fixate on a couple of elements and to explore the rest. First it was Dnd,the 80s samurai movies,now the opposite side with the "realistic" medieval,and nowadays everybody must show to have a gambeson and know halfswording to show something as medieval.
The best armour is like an onion: It has layers.
Your thumbnail with Calvin and Hobbs made me click so fast! Reminds me of my childhood reading the "funnies" in the paper.
my gambeson took 274 hours, 47 meters of different fabric. body 25 layers.the whole project lasted 2 and a half years - fabric is expensive when it’s tens of meters long...
It should be noted that folded layers makes the gamebson even stronger than. However, not enough to stop the mighty spear.
To make the whole leather vs gambeson debate all the stupider we have French rules for gambeson making that require them to be thirty layers of linen...or twenty-five with a deerskin surface layer. Somehow the likes of Shad never bring that up.
That’s interesting, they consider a deerskin to be equivalent to about five layers. I wasn’t familiar with that.
@@MalcolmPL It doesn't say what kind of deerskin, admittedly, so whether it's a red deer or a moose or anything in between I have no idea. Tells you they recognized the value of composite armour though, and that they thought at least some hides were a lot tougher than five times the amount of linen.
Edit: It also says that the very best ones incorporate thirty layers and the stag skin both. Make of that what you will.
@@KartarNighthawk I've heard that one translated as moose, in which case the combination would be exceptionally tough.
@@MalcolmPL I hadn't seen moose used as a translation for that particular source but I had seen other leather/hide gear in other sources attributed to "elk" so it seemed like a possibility. That you've got some confirmation of that is great.
Assuming you know, is moose hide especially thick, or just very tough for its thickness? My knowledge of comparative animal skins more or less stops at the African border.
Both, it’s about twice the thickness of deerskin and is tougher than an equivalent weight of cowhide.
The accumulated heat under all the layers of air!..
Good for Winter and fresh Spring days but, outside surprise attacks before dawn, I can't imagine using it and really fighting for more than half an hour MAX in normal Summer or Fall days.
I'd imagine that to some extent you could get used to the heat if you wore one frequently enough. Your body would eventually adapt and produce less waste heat. The same way the migrant workers from Jamaica and Mexico can work the fields all day in the middle of the Canadian summer wearing sweaters and toques. Their bodies are adapted to a higher ambient temperature, such that thirty degrees and sunny feels cold.
@@MalcolmPL "To some extent" yes, true. Would still suck big time and decrease performance.
No surprise warriors in hot weathers (worst with high humidity) favored articulated/joined pieces of hard armor and minimal clothing. Or 'oversized' flexible armor to maintain some airflow.
I think padded armor comes from a time when you *had* to be exposed and in range from archers but doing low to moderate effort tasks/almost no continuous fighting. Max coverage being the first concern.
Let's take a siege situation for example :
The 'workers' would be comfy, dressed lightly working mostly behind barricades/view blocking screens (digging trenches, building barricades, moving stuff, organizing/storing efficiently before an assault, etc). The 'shock troops' with better but less armor resting or being on moderate level of alert.
So we are left with a few horsemen doing small patrols around the camp (the horses doing the effort/sweating), archers sitting on their ass most of the time, a few 'guards' here and there maybe, and a few small lines of pikesmen denying/slowing deep penetrative surprise charges until barricades were up and strong. Scouts (on foot or mounted for fast recon) obviously being very lightly armored.
Padded armor became less covering even for the first 2/3 lines of pikesmen behind barricades/a line of shields. Impact resistance for the upper body being the main concern (>>> short padded vests - Italian style). Maybe it was always an half-half type of repartition.. more padding on the flanks, less in the center..
I wonder if a 'high statistics' more efficient approach was at some definitive point implemented everywhere for pikesmen, with the most needed pieces of (non metallic) rigid armor pre-mounted on some cushioning so they could be 'quickly' swapped (using knots) when damaged/made unpractical with stuck arrows.
The warrior being clothed with 'minimal' or low average all-around protection.
Something like mainly shoulders and upper torso protection (like the armored American rugby players...).
Like they say, courage and bravery fight the war but logistics win the war.
_
@@HAYAOLEONE Uh, quilted armour is really common in Africa, in some of the hottest places on Earth. If there's a running trend in African armour it's in the speed with which it can be taken on and off, rather than the materials used to make it. And rigid armours aren't better in the heat, especially if they're metal; metal conducts heat like nobody's business. There really isn't such a thing as good armour in hot weather, just degrees of bad.
Linen was quite expensive of a cloth and I would think that medieval people would use more like layers of other cloths like wool as they are cheaper to harvest and manufacture. There are medieval depictions that showed gambesons worn as stand alones were quite thick so I would suspect more of a combination of few linen layers with wool, cotton, or hemp (which ever is available) making the majority of the armor.
Sure.
You immediately became one of my favorite CZcamsrs and I would even say historian.
Nice! Based on this and tests with arrows, it seems that these would be effective against glancing blows. If someone has a straight-on, free-shot at your gut, then you're toast. Or, if they're 15 yards away with an open-shot at your gut, then you're also toast. But, if you're in formation, actively defending yourself, trying to dodge blows, or deflecting spears aimed at your comrade, then I think gambesons would do well to keep you from getting poked and cut all over - especially your arms and legs.
This cleared up a lot of my confusion on the subject. Thank you.
Glad to hear it.
You look like a very interesting person. I am enjoying watching all the videos on your channel.
Well done.
thanks for the video! your channel is incredibly interesting and has answered many of my historic questions. can’t wait to see you blow up!!
Why would you want that? Channels almost always get worse the bigger they get.
Besides that, I think if the channel was going to blow up, it would have done so already.
@@MalcolmPL I thought your ideas are unique from other channels and worth a greater audience, just intended as a compliment though my apologies.
@@billfriendo2975 I took it as a compliment, you don't have to apologize.
I apologize for being cynical. I was trying to be humorous.
@@MalcolmPL Ah no worries!! Keep up the good work Malcolm 👍
Awesome job!
Maybe it would make a difference if every layer was angled to the next by a few degrees, or alternate at a certain ange to each other. That way a penetrating blade would have to cut both warp and weft threads of every layer to penetrate, not just cutting one and slipping between the other. Of course this would result in waster from offcuts, but you're mediaeval and thrifty, you'll find a use for them.
If nothing else this really showed me just how great spears are lol
Would probably be a good idea to just thicken up certain areas that are more vital and be relaxed on things that need to move. Having some breath-ability would be nice if could be tiled like architectural shingles.
Maybe a hatch to take a piss and shit on a full body get up.
This video was helpful. I want a layer of gambeson for under my armor, but the only ones I’m familiar with have been the stuffed version, and I see now that this would be a mistake for under my scale.
You want to minimize bulk.
I've made a gambeson with an exterior done in leather. the damn thing took me a month to sew. Looks great though.
Nice.
I kinda thought that a many layer organic armor of "common" variety for raised armies would have been made from as many old used shirts/tunics and/or patched together fabrics as could be sourced and then only faced/backed with new(er) fabric. I didn't think that a common (even well off) soldier's gambeson would be using a lot of new cloth to make up the inner layers. I heard of (not read personally) edicts/laws/etc that were describing manufacture of gambesons in this fashion, seemed to be a viable way to get a decent gambeson made without breaking the bank.
Let's be honest who created the hype in gambeson was shad, he is a fanboy of this type of armor to the point of losing all ability to reason. Well in any case Good video as always.
He started it, then other people telephone gamed it into insanity.
Shad has become a driving force in modern Hema and fantasy,but i am afraid he may have made an error in his last Nunchuk videos. That will mean that for the next 5 years we will have Hema fanboys shitting on the flail.
@@junichiroyamashita well that might be better than the last few years of everyone saying flails never existed
Shad and the rest of the HEMA crowd launched such a weird-ass crusade against any "light" armour that isn't a gambeson and its had a toxic spillover effect everywhere. I was in a convo about the use of leather in the Middle East and the inevitable moron showed up posting links to Shad et al bashing leather and hyping the gambeson. Like, pretending for a moment that he was right, he does HEMA. Why are you posting in my thread on Western Asia? Eurocentrism at its stupidest.
It would be very interesting to find out what the optimal combination of armor types would be if we had all the modern knowledge but had to rely on the manufacturing techniques available for each time period.
I see you used b55 Dacron for more than bowstrings. I do too, great stuff! I've sewn my shoes together with it
It’s just waxed nylon from the leather store.
I'd love to see your whole collection of armor.
Here you go.
sites.google.com/view/malcolmplforge/armor?authuser=0
I read that the Mongles would wrap themselves in a few layers of silk,like a 6ft x1 ft single piece,wrapped around the midriff would prevent an arrow from piercing the skin and if it did pierce ghe skin it made retrieving the arrow head easier. Silk.
Apparently this is a myth that stems from a misunderstanding of a mongolian practice of gifting silk garments to soldiers who distinguished themselves. The soldiers would then usually wear the silk garment outside of their armour to show off thair status and were called something that translates roughly to "silk armoured" if I remember right.
I'm pretty sure I haven't remembered the name correctly but you get the gist I think. Someone reads the translated silky name and thinks that the silk is actually part of the mongolian armour system, when in fact it's just decorative. It would be a super expensive textile armour and even the Mongolians at the height of their power weren't that rich
fashion in the age of the black Prince is a good start
Aketons were worn under maille. A jupon was the over armour version.
That is not a consistent rule between languages regions and periods.
@MalcolmPL Just never heard of an aketon over armour, that's all. A jupon or surcoat, sure. Probably all depends on rank etc.
I can imagine the lower ranks doing so. Certainly worth discussion 👍
I’m a HAMA guy and this video got me thinking on African quilted armor which seems to be a hybrid of both the layered and padded types you mention used by our equivalent of a knight. I don’t have a good replica yet but I image it was a compromise between protection and heat mitigation as armor can get quite uncomfortable/live threatening. Also have you done any research on the treated fabric armors like the one the Aztecs use, I wonder where they fall on the scale. Anyway great video.
I don't have more than a surface level knowledge on either. Hopefully @Rafael Mena or some other commenter will notice.
A lot of African armours are designed to be taken on and off quickly precisely because of the heat factor you mention. A quilted coat, stuffed with kapok or wads of paper, provides reasonably heavy protection while not only being (comparatively) cool to wear, but easy enough to be taken on and off without assistance, allowing it to be donned when battle was joined, and removed as soon as it was over.
The major downside we hear regarding them is that they were flammable as all Hell. Kapok (which we used to fill lifejackets with) is tough, but burns if you look at it funny, and paper should speak for itself on that front. Flaming arrows were a major part of the counter to that sort of armour, and in turn, some African heavy cav would carry a bag filled with water to douse any flames with.
@@KartarNighthawk that’s very interesting especially the water bags. I had known that the armor was wet sometimes but I never factored flammability as a risk factor. I really interested in the dichotomy of Armor because it seems that armored and unarmored warrior seem to be able to compete/match with each other due to the environment and style of fighting.
@@LordPeachew Generally speaking, soldiers in any given area will wear as much armour as they a) can afford and b) safely wear within their environment. In an African context that often isn't much: the heaviest gear you'll see in the region are worn by the Mamluks and the Ethiopians, who both combo chainmail bodysuits with hide or metal cuirasses. Both of them, it should be noted, are operating in notably less hostile environments; northern Egypt and the Ethiopian highlands aren't cool, but they're a lot less inhospitable than the Sahara or Sahel.
This is one of the reasons why shields tend to be so important in African warfare, and why African shields are often much taller and/or thicker than European ones. Contrast the kite and heater shields of the European Middle Ages with the three-cubits high lamt shields of the Tuareg, the "gothic windows" of the Kanembu spearmen, or the five foot tall buffalo or cattlehide shields of the early Maasai and Zulu and you'll see what I mean. Where heat rendered body armour impractical or unviable, shields grow in size.
Something I have seen as a part of fabric armour(but not tested) is thick felt. Have you thought of trying this?
I haven't tried it, but felt tends to be a lot stronger than equivalent weight of cloth.
making myself leg underarmour right now, gona try not to make it too thick....since im filling it with waste cloth....
but damn good video, youre true diamond in the rough
If it’s going under something rigid you only need about an eighth of an inch or less.
$20 per yard of linen? That’s quite high. I’m not even sure if you’d see that sort of price at Joann’s. Secondhand and in bulk, I’ve seen massive reels going for a few dollars per yard. Straight from China, you could probably get rough linen for a similar price.
Would any modern things that aren't already armour worthy, be worth using as filling for gamberson?
Any tough fabric like denim would be good for the layered sort. Any non-synthetic fabric would be good for loose padding, provided you shredded it.
Garden twine makes for very poor padding.
I once padded an arming cap with scrap from jeans.
Have you tried gluing the individual layers greek cuirass style ?
No, I have not.
This video just helps proves how good spears are. LOL. Good vid. I'm unsure if saying they shouldn't combine the attributes of them all though. I might be missing something other CZcamsrs, and info I've read has said, but from what I can gather they were for the most part interchangeable. Basically what I understand these terms are more scholarly used as contemporary texts never really have a precise meaning. This makes sense becasue medieval Europe is a very diverse place. What was used as a term in France doesn't mean the same as used in the Holy Roman Empire. Heck with the HRE's mix of different city states, duchies, kingdoms, and such it's likely fair to believe different territories used different terms despite being in under the same complex of said territories. Different languages also make a difference. I'm not saying your wrong, but to say the are very different I think really depends on if you want to categorize them different or not. In terms of a modern scholarly references you certainly are correct.
The main point was just that the thirty layer garment is not the same thing as the under armor garment. Regardless of the terminology.
@@MalcolmPL Fair enough.
It’s really interesting that this piece of armor (ostensibly “affordable”) isn’t very effective against the weapon it’s most likely to encounter - the spear. I think this means it wasn’t actually used at all on its own, but in conjunction with other armor as part of a set.
I disagree, many forms of armor were not meant to just stop everything, stop a cut or an arrow at low speed, it is already good for decreasing mortality. A good, more modern example is how steel helmets from World War II could not stop rifle shots, which were the most common equipment with infantry, but were able to stop artillery fragments. So a form of armor doesn't have to be the best it can, it just needs to be good enough.
I agree with both of you. It was better as a set, but did have some value on it's own.
I only tested the spear and not other weapons because I can't pull a hundred pound warbow, and the sword or axe would have eaten up the surface and been a pain to repair. As I mentioned as sidenotes, you don't require too many layers to stop a sword or an arrow.
Additionally, the tests represent good solid, committed blows, with my weight behind them. The armor would have fared much better if I had tested quick jabs instead.
And you're right. Armor doesn't have to be a hundred percent effective against everything, just effective against some things. A sword can take off an arm, but a miserable two layer garment stuffed with bits of twine too short to use can stop that sword cut dead. It might not stop a spear, but it's a heck of a lot better than nothing.
I think it may be worth noting that whether worn on its own or as part of a set it almost always would have been comboed with some form of shield, at least as far as melee combat is concerned. Which changes the parameters somewhat; it's not so much your primary defense as it is meant to give you chance at surviving hits you don't intercept with the shield.
Even if it wasn't super effective against getting stabbed it might prevent cuts from going deep which could save your life or limb in a time before antibiotics. Especially considering that if you're fighting in the more densely populated parts of Europe or are in a particularly big war camp animal and human poop/fluids are everywhere.
Ah so there IS a padded armor that goes over mail! Does that mean that one also wears padding (a doublet in this case) underneath mail? And I assume in this case, clothes under the doublet obvs.
Many people chose to only wear a thick tunic under the mail.
You don't wear clothing beyond an optional undershirt under an arming doublet, an arming doublet isn't really padded either. They tended to be extremely thin, 1-3 layers of cloth, with optional batting on places such as the clavicle for comfort. They are more or less supposed to act as a foundational layer for attaching armor.
@@bloodypine22 I used the word arming doublet only because there isn't a better word for what I'm describing. This conversation is not about late medieval arming doublets or plate armor. It is about the ambiguity of the word "gambeson" and people who think that you should wear thirty layers under your chainmail.
Is it too late to boost engagement on this? I'm doin' it anyway.
I wonder if that includes things like apprentices who could be given the simpler portions of the task to do to speed up the process. We know that many profession had apprentices working under them so it makes sense that parts of the task could be offloaded to them to increase speed.
It's always something I wonder about when experimental archaeology projects start, as I wonder if the experiment can match the number of skilled laborers and their progress along that path (i.e. can they get enough of both skill craftsmen and apprentices and not just one or the other) to accurately match the tools of the day for lack of a better term.
I don’t think apprentices would affect the price too much, man hours are man hours after all. The master weaver might not be paying them, but their labor is still worth something to him.
However, that is an interesting point about experimental archaeology. It’s difficult if not impossible to accurately emulate the skill level and work conditions of the period, certainly not in a single experiment in any case.
@@MalcolmPL No kidding, but I mean more the amount of time it can take to produce. Like, a 1,000 hours is a lot of time when the task is done by a single person, but if they have a couple of apprentices the actual time could cut down considerably and reduce cost. Like a 40 hour project is a week of work for one guy, but could be like a 1 day project if it's dooled out among like 4 people, which could let them take more work and reduce the cost potentially.
@@supinearcanum I'll agree that you could reduce overall man hours by a little, just from the increased efficiency of having a team. You might even be able to cut the man hours by a third, but if you cut thirty percent off something expensive, it's still going to be expensive. Just a little less so.
@@MalcolmPL indeed, I guess my argument is that manpower and that interconnected relationship is really important to the costs of time and costs of items like this and and this feels like something we are still really bad at replicating in experiments as well, the infrastructure of those lifeways collapsed as part of the transition to modern manufacturing.
I guess what I'm saying is I just really want us to find a few books from the period that really walk through what like, the setup was for some of these shops, especially the industrial grade ones that got hired to like, produce arms and armor for whole legions by like the Romans or how a master smith's shop organized itself to meet rapid or high demand XD. Like we know there were plenty of home made pieces or luxury artists who might have only worked for a single client, but even the would want to find ways to shave time off the process.
How would you describe the flexibility of each doubling in layers?
Too long ago for me to remember. But you can easily do the experiment yourself, just get a blanket or towel, fold it and count the layers.
You get what you pay for, especially with armor
Whether you pay in cash or time.
One thing to remember though, is virtually nowhere did sheep to shawl style production, somewhere the flax was made, somewhere else the thread was made, the fabric etc. All the trade in between made it cheaper, easier, and faster.
Why would trade make it cheaper or faster?
@@MalcolmPL because the overall production and labor happens simultaneously. Farmers are growing the flax while others are prepping the material at the same time. If you have to wait for each part of the process then the time involved goes up. A good example would be spinners making thread from last years wool harvest while the same sheep is growing next seasons. Meanwhile the thread from the previous is with the weaver or the dyer. In many ways it is decentralized mass production. This is also why a bad season or two can damage a supply change, while disasters might set it back several seasons and require finding trade with other areas that weren't effected until production can be resumed.
@@JasonPalenske I still don't see how that affects prices positively. The total man hours to produce the item remains the same, while every additional middleman adds a markup.
@@MalcolmPL Your overall price increase in negligible, especially as you include the required skills involved, your average flax farmer will probably not be too up on what is required to warp a loom, but he will no what to do to better prepare the flax for the spinners so that they come to him on the regular.
If I go to the lumberyard, I can expect to pay fifty percent more than if I buy directly from the sawmill. I don't see why it would be any different back in the day, considering transportation is a lot easier these days.
As to weaving, it was a common skill that every woman would have. Loom weights are one of the more common archaeological finds from the medieval period.
Labor costs at $15 an hour would cost $156,450. That a lot.
Assuming minimum wage for all involved and no transportation fees.
Realistically speaking, probably more like $200k.
Only 7 inches? My understanding is that none of ower vital organs is more than 3 inches from the skin.
That’s true. Seven inches is enough to go almost all the way through.
Don't think that those 2 handed, lean in with whole body mass stabs are realistics. In mass shield wall melee more likely attacks would be oppurtunistic quick single handed stabs. Much weaker. Similarly arrows do loose energy rapidly at longer distances and if they come at an angle you get sloped armor effect.
The point isn't to show the capacity against the average blow, the point is to show that the armour isn't as good as certain people make it out to be.
There is a certain contingent of nerds on the internet who seem to think it is the ultimate armour. It is not.
@@MalcolmPL You prove your point, but also end up unintentionally misinforming people about threats that this type of armor would mostly encounter and was designed to stop.
I agree with that point on the condition that you apply that same standard to all other armour tests that have been published.@@voneror