Roman Armour vs Medieval Armour
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 10. 2015
- Roman armour compared to medieval armour, historical comparison.
An armour (spelled armor in the US) is a protective covering that is used to prevent damage from being inflicted to an object, individual, or vehicle by weapons or projectiles, usually during combat, or from damage caused by a potentially dangerous environment or action.
The word "armour" began to appear in the Middle Ages as a derivative of Old French. It is dated from 1297 as a "mail, defensive covering worn in combat". The word originates from the Old French armure, itself derived from the Latin armatura meaning "arms and/or equipment", with the root armare meaning "arms or gear".
Armour has been used throughout recorded history. It has been made from a variety of materials, beginning with rudimentary leather protection and evolving through mail and metal plate into today's modern composites.
Significant factors in the development of armour include the economic and technological necessities of its production. For instance, plate armour first appeared in Medieval Europe when water-powered trip hammers made the formation of plates faster and cheaper.
Well-known armour types in European history include the lorica hamata, lorica squamata, and the lorica segmentata of the Roman legions, the mail hauberk of the early medieval age, and the full steel plate harness worn by later medieval and renaissance knights, and breast and back plates worn by heavy cavalry in several European countries until the first year of World War I (1914-15). The samurai warriors of feudal Japan utilised many types of armour for hundreds of years up to the 19th century.
Link to Shad's channel: / shadmbrooks
Royalty Free Music by: Epidemic Sound
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
I've met few people who are as generous and genuine as you my friend, thank you very much for the shout out, and what a wonderful video as well. I really liked your point about armor maintenance as this is something I've overlooked in the past. I also loved your point about the tremendous significance of such a protective shield. Those scutums are incredible!
It's really interesting how shock cavalry changed the battlefield so much. I've heard that another reason that made shock cavalry possible was the development and introduction of the stirrup, meaning the horseman could now brace his whole weight against the horse making the couched lance truly devastating.
You two are the best in this community, keep up the good work.
Already Know you two for a longer Time . And Most of the channels from your video
+I am Shad I am generous with those who deserve it and you clearly do ^^ When I see talent I recognise it. I am glad you liked the video too :D I hope you get many subscribers from this shout out. I also added a link in the description because I forgot to do that xD
+I am Shad From what I understand, the stirrup was more of a game changer for mounted bowmen. A good saddle is much more important for lancers, while stirrups have little effect.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
Also I really doubt if shock cavalry had any effect on the disappearance of the shield wall. Very few horses would want to run into such things. Especially if spears are also involved. To give another example of the unwillingness of horses to kill themselves: not a single British infantry square was breached during Waterloo.
The disappearance of well trained infantry is probably the main reason for the decline of the shield wall.
While I agree about the classic rectangular scutum, what about the later period when the Romans adopted the ovoid scutums? Those wouldn't have offered the same amount of protection as the scutums of old, so why wouldn't they have added graves to the standard legionary kit to compensate?
Good and interesting video, it was a joy to watching it. :)
+Warhorse Studios Warhorse Studios you honour me with your comment :)
+Metatron Thank you :)
We know your channel for a long time now, even before you make this video about our game. There are only a few people making videos like you do, so it is not difficult to know about them all. ;)
Sadly there are even fewer people making video games like we do, so we have to fill this gap... :D
Warhorse Studios Wow fantastic, it's great to know you have been watching my videos for so long, I really appreciate.
Your game is already fantastic, and can't even fathom what it will be when it will be released *-*
and I am planning on making more videos about it.
And I got the black gambeson you can buy from the travelling chap in the village and I was very happy it's black because as you can clearly see in this video I like black gambesons :D
+Metatron Oh yeah, you are right, you can buy it and prepare yourself for combat with this piece of clothing. It fits very well under the brigandine you can lend at the arena.
And some good news: the new alpha will come soon. :)
Warhorse Studios I foresee some fun evenings after work with a pizza next to me and headphones full blast :D
Id have to go with the Lorica Segmentata it has that badass imperial look to it.
damn stormcloaks
soukupb áq
Random Whiterun Guard lol
You wouldn't actually want to wear it in real life though because it was uncomfortable to wear, noisy, hard to maintain, hard to put on, etc. It's great as parade armor but not so great as practical armor compared to the alternatives.
Except that the romans used it effectivelly in combat.
Sorry Metatron, but your argument about changes in medieval warfare being based on shock cavalry was based on outdated scholarship than has since been disproved.
Medieval infantry continued to use tight formation as the Romans did, if anything their formation became tighter! The proportion of cavalry in medieval european armies were not significantly greater than that of ancient armies, nor were they capable of defeating disciplined heavy infantry on their own. Cavalry has always been a high status arm supplied by the nobility in the ancient world, even in the Roman army. Ancient cavalry did just fine charging without saddle and stirrup; Alexander at the battle of Granicus reportedly spitted an opponent through his breastplate with his lance, so did the Roman general Marcellus at the battle of Clastidium.
What changed was the nature of societies. The classical era Roman army had come from a world that was well urbanized and densely populated. Hence it was possible for that society to support a professional military force that was expensive in terms of resources to maintain. The high population density resulted in much larger force to space ratio, so infantry were more useful and pitched battles common.
After 100 AD the Roman world experienced a significant and continuous population decline (although much less severe in the east compared to in the west). The cause of this has been pointed out to be plagues as well as resources exhaustion. As a result urban habitation went downhill tremendously and the villages became isolated from one another due to the decline in trade, and had to become self sufficient, becoming medieval manors. For example, the population of Roman Britain was probably around 4 million, while in 1086 it was only 1.5 million and wouldn't reach the previous level until the 13th century.
The low population density meant that over time there were not enough resources to support a large army of professionals hence the rise of feudal military forces. The large ratio of space to force meant that cavalry type warfare of raiding was much more common than pitched battles.
It should be noted that as the medieval world became richer and more densely populated in the High Middle Ages, professional military forces returned, disciplined infantry formations became common and their style of warfare became more and more like those of the Romans.
This comment is extraordinarily interesting. Could you tell me some of the sources where you can find all of this information?
Jan Boddaert
For the information on ancient cavalry:
1. "Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare" by Phillip Sidnell
2. www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
Written by modern day jouster Richard Alvarez
For the declining population of the Roman world:
"Plague and the End of Antiquity: The Pandemic of 541-750"
Population figures about the Roman empire vs that of the medieval period was available all over the web, just pay attention to their reference material.
About the evolution of warfare in the medieval period, you could pick any good history book specializing in that topic.
The rest was just putting the pieces together so that it all made sense.
Because of people like you i love life.Seeing something correct and well made heals all pains caused by moronic ideas.,,Tips hat in homage,,
I hope metatron sees that comment! looks like a rich discussion
But didn't the Eastern Roman Empire, which still fielded a pretty massive military, also move away from the legionary system?
Like the Nazi soldiers, the Romans were always seen as the less skilled warriors and failing to fight better than barbarians in some movies....... I hate how they do this.
+33mavboy Ye it makes no sense at all ^^
Metatron
It makes sense most of the skilled German SS were killed along with the elite, very limited because they were outnumbered. But roman armies had the numbers, just not enough commanders what i'm guessing. Imagine what the world would be like if Rome didn't fall to the plague.
+33mavboy I also don't like some depictions of German soldiers in some movies but think of the following: In a lot of American movies from the fighting in France and Germany '44 and '45 most German troops actually were poorly equipped, understrength and later also poorly trained and unexperienced. In a lot of places there were no regular Panzerdivisions or experienced regular Infatry available. There were a lot of "Volksgrenadiere", who were not as bad as the later "Volkssturm" but still inferior to the well supplied Allied forces, who had more tanks and Air support. So the high German casualties often make at least some sense and were a reality.
+33mavboy Oh no, dont try to explain this one. In every american WW2 movie each american soldier is like a CS GO pro and each german soldier is like he is holding a weapon first time in their hands (in contrast to reality). German soldiers were best on average from all the nations yet in every movie they are worst than the soviet soldiers (here refering to the fact that most soviet soldiers were either untrained or unequipped)
Csanad121
Thats right, Alot of Americans had more fast paced training than the Germans because of General Paton. But Russians were resistant fighters, peasants, Old people, But russians had no fear of death, they would take the chance to sacrifice 1000 for 100. Germans were , professional and not overwhelming. think of it this way, the allied powers was about 5-2, 2 being germany, but germany is very powerful, the allied powers were noobs 5v2 them. Im fucken cooked when i wrote this btw.
I have to admit, that I didn't learn anything from this video. I was too mesmerized by your lovely accent.
+Ardan Starmoon ahahah :P
"Arğma..."
I thought you were going to cry out...LINDYBEIGE!
Me too
Love the angle changes and editing bravo¡!
Great job love your videos
Thanks for the video! :D I always wondered about the difference :D It's always so interesting!
Damn I admire and respect you knowledge. Great videos.
Very interesting points and great video. Nicely told, as usual. Please, keep the good work...
+Sixto Ramos Thank you very much for watching ^^
This is doing better than the other video. :P
And you made some really good points here, that needed to be addressed for most people. Thanks for this.
Very interesting. Thank you.
love your vids
Very informative, thanks.
Very nice mate... carry on the good job!!! Topman ...congrats!!!
Thanks. That was very interesting.
Thank you for this video. I found it really interesting. I'm going to subscribe to your channel.
Nice explanation!
The "face the camera" scene changes are so awesome :)
awesome vid. prob one of my favourites of yours, very informative. :-)
good video, liked it a lot.
Your videos are VERY GOOD.
Thanks for creating this environment where discussions can be had and information can be spread.
BTW, I would love to see more video on battle tactics, specially from an historic perspective.
Great channel!
thanks for the info metatron, it almost seems like this video was a response to a previous question i made on your channel ;) cheers
we need a part 2 for this video, interesting stuff
Great video.
Fascinating video!
@Metatron, Man great video. I am relatively new to your channel so I have much to learn and take in. I really like your topics and appreciate your knowledge. Thanks brah
great video
Very informative video.
i like your vids you have a new subscriber
Nice video mate. In my opinion it only lacked more stressin the essentially different sorts of warfare that the armors where prepared for. Really nice work on the comparison tho.
Insane amount of cuts in your movie ... I can't ..... LINDYBEIGE !!!!
*Lego figur walks with a gun * :“Lindybeige!“
Informative video as always! Nothing pertaining to the content but I got a kick out of that last walk off/walk in edit.
Young man,i've enjoyed very much!simplicity and Deep knowlege of the real Matter.congratulations! thanks for sharing,Paco(regards)
This is so cool! Just the kind of video i wanted when I messaged you on facebook
The music and camera cuts made this video trippy and unsettling, I hope all your other videos are like this.
love u dude for that vid im a die hard roman legion fan .......tnx keep it up !
I am so fucking glad your more contemporary videos don't have jumpcuts that change angles of the same scene..... I'm soooooooooo happy....
great video;)
another great video, Metty :)
+Mushy 808 Metty xD
Metatron I just had to say it. :p
Another great and educational video keep it up they just keep getting better ! Did Trajan's troops not wear the same type of segmented arm armour, the one used by gladiators, for the Dacian war's due to the effectiveness of weapons such as the falx ?
You had fun editing this video...
Very good video
Metatron, love the channel. I was watching one of your other videos and was about to ask how a Roman legionary would fare against an armoured knight. Quick search, and I find you have already covered this. Thank you.
Love the shout out to shad, it would be nice for you to remake this video, a few of the points you make you've already corrected in other more recent videos, it would be nice to see cause the content is interesting.
"Oh look a ten minute Metatron video, I'll just watch it real quick".
*an hour and five Metatron videos later*
"Goddamit"...
A few points I´d like to bring up in the hamata vs. segmentata issue:
Hamata (mail) also has the benefit of fitting lots of people. Plate armor has to fit a specific wearer pretty well to not hinder movement, while mail armor is much more forgiving. A Roman legion likely only needs a few stock sizes of mail shirts to pretty much equip every recruit with. And mail, given that it folds nicely, is also very easy to keep in stock and doesn´t need as much room as fixed shape plate armor (segmentata).
On top of that, mail is a really long living armor... it can last for generations, in some extreme cases Roman mail was still used in the middle ages. So the Roman state may just have had an ever-increasing stockpile of mail the longer it existed because it just didn´t break down.
Finally, the last point on the logistic side: Segmentata and hamata need two different kinds of workers to be made. The segmentata with its bigger plates requires skilled iron craftsmen, whose avaiability may be limited. Hamata, on the other hand, isn´t that hard to make for less skilled workers, just very time consuming with all the rings you need to connect and rivet... however, seeing that slave workers were readily avaiable in Roman times, a high amount of unskilled workers to make mail was probably much easier to come by than an average amount of skilled workers to forge iron plates.
Besides logistics, what mail armor also has over plate armor is how quick and easy it is to put on. Plate armor needs every part to be put on properly, fastened with belts and straps and often connected to other parts; you need to twist yourself to tie knots in hard to reach places and so on. Given the kind of plate armor, it may be required that another person helps you put it on. This is not only annoying, but also takes quite a while.
Mail, however, especially a mail shirt or hauberk, is just like (heavy) clothing - grab it, put it over your head and that´s it. Sure you can use some straps to help with the weight distirbution a bit, but as soon as you threw that mail shirt over your head it´s fully functional armor. Try to throw on plate armor of comparable body coverage in a hurry and see how well that works :) And when it´s really dangerous, you can even sleep in mail armor just fine if you have to. Again, try to sleep in plate and see how rested you´ll feel after that.
I'm not sure what to make of it, but I read once that Lorica Segmentata was a sort of a stop gap measure. That Roman army expanded so much in such a short period, that they simply could not make enough mail armor to meet the demand. It was very labor intensive (plates for punched rings, plus wire for riveted rings, plus rivets and riveting, and weaving it all). You could cut the time by riveting whole plates together, without bothering with all the rest of the process. Less wasted metal too? Probably?
Then I read also, that the development of medieval plate armor coincided with Black Death plague. The cost of labor went up by a lot, which made mail armor significantly more expensive than plate, so essentially the process of plate adoption had the same roots in both cases. Cheaper and quicker to make, not necessarily better.
I don't know what to think of it, but personally I would probably prefer to wear mail while doing typical legionnaire duties, and even in combat. In medieval context, I probably could quite easily and cheaply make my grandpa's mail fit me well. I don't think I could wear his plate armor, though.
+bakters That's an interesting theory.
***** Romans did not wear both. In medieval Europe they did, to an extent. There is this guy Knyght Errant (or similar...) who has a smashing channel about early plate armor. Yes, you do wear a mail shirt and coif around your neck, but no mail sleeves and mittens, no mail leg protection, so in the end you still save a lot of work.
(And personally I'm quite sure that what he wears will still work reasonably well if you replaced mail with padded cloth.)
Then the quality of mail does not need to be all that great if it serves as only a supplementary protection. You can save quite a bit of labor and material this way too. Mail worn as primary protection was a different beast to that worn as literally a stop-gap measure in addition to plate.
+bakters I'm not sure about the Black Death theory, but plate armor is generally more protective than mail, considerably so, even.
However, chain armor is more accepting of multiple users, while medieval full plate is more restricting in term of measurements.
I would like to add that a full body suit of mail armor (like those worn in the 12th century) is quite heavy, almost as heavy as a suit of full plate.
TheFilthyCasual Yes, I agree that *well fitted" plate armor will offer better protection. But what if you got a few castles and some feasts between wars? Would you still try to use your perfectly tailored plate armor from ten years ago?
I know you are aware of that, but I just wanted to make it even more obvious. Most people can imagine how it is to try and fit into your old clothes which "kind of shrunk" with the passage of time. If you couldn't fit into your car, because you got a few kilos extra around your belly, you would consider it, which I'm sure you understand.
+432fuuzz
A gambeson is not easy to stab through. Get a nail, fold whatever you are wearing above 10 times and try to easily stab through it. It won't happen. I tried it... ;-)
bakters Good point!
I have to take some exception with what you are saying. Scutum didn't go away because of a lance, and neither did the shield wall. For instance if one looks at the battle of hastings you will notice that both side utilized shield wall. In addition Romans encountered heavy cavalry before as well. Cataphracts were in fact heavy cavalry which did use lances, although they did not have them under arm.
What killed Roman formation was simple organization. To have Roman military you have to have Roman discipline, and support. You required multiple types of troops, professional military, great supply lines, etc.. None of this really was available later on. While Man at Arms (what we would call Knights) were very well trained, they were very well trained WARRIORS, not really soldiers. Which is to say part of a military cog that trained and fight together.
In addition when one discusses Roman military it is very important to discuss time periods; as Roman Republic started as Hoplite soldiers, with round shields spears, etc.. went to big shields, and short swords, and ended up with long swords, chain and spears.
Similarly there is a huge difference between forces of Odoacer's, or Charlemagne and Henry V.
+Marek Dohojda Don't forget the difference in the people being recruited into the military in the Late Roman Era. Many of them were Barbarians who blended traditional Roman Soldiery with their native warrior ways.
***** Absolutely true! By the crises of the 3rd century Roman Military was far more barbaric in nature and makeup then they were Roman, and by the 5th Century they were pretty much all Barbarian (especially in the West).
+Marek Dohojda Yep, i think i can support this point. Roman battles were fought in formations acting as a cohesive force, later in the medieval period battles became less massive - i.e. individual fighters were needed more, with extended armour and such.
+Marek Dohojda Overall I agree with you but I'll just mention that at the battle of Hastings the Norman cavalry didn't charge through the Saxon formation, they mainly threw their spears and they definitely didn't couch them.
Robert R Precisely! Which is my point. The shield didn't disappear because of Cavalry!
The whole notion that somehow (basically) better tactics came along which displaced Romans is seriously flawed. Heck Romans of 1st century AD could have taken on armies all the way till around 15th Century without much problems.
Some things did improve, such as better steel, and thereby armor, but overall the organization and strategies were still superior of the Romans then of later centuries, until the rise of more modern states.
Another idea for medieval armor being more "complete", vs a legionary's kit. A legionary is being issued equipment from the Government - Governments like to cut costs*, especially when things have to be paid for in real money. Thus, guys at the top are looking to save a buck here; the cost of not giving a legion arm protection may well finance 1/4 of a whole new legion (made up numbers, but you follow).
Contrary, a post-Roman warrior (milites, knight, etc) is buying for himself. Thus, since he's thinking of himself and only himself, he's going to buy the best he possibly can.
Just an idea, based on my own psychology.
*Play along, you know what I mean.
+Michael Eversberg II This is probably a reason, since cost is also one of the reasons why they switched from Lorica Segmentata to Maille.
Knechtor Highly theoretical, though it does appear "truthy".
+Michael Eversberg II This is also arguably why armour fell out of use in the Early-Modern Era, coinciding with the re-adoption of professional armies by European states. Guns were part of the equation, of course, but a lot of it was the fact that suddenly governments had to pay for everybody's equipment again.
The funny thing is that armour never *really* went out of use, it just became super cost-efficient. The thick wool tunics and shakos of 18th-19th century troops were designed to fend off sword cuts, but it was decided that armouring people against gunfire or even thrusting weapons wasn't worth the extra money except for close combat specialists.
Actually, if you buy an officer's cap from anytime before 1950 or so, you will see that many of them come with a metal ring that sits on a layer of padding and covers the head. This is there to defend against sabre cuts from above.
+Michael Eversberg II This is a good point, i never thought of that. Although depending on the period, some roman soldiers would pay for their equipment.
Tomas Rocha Martins
True, though I believe the Marian reforms turned it over to the "State". It's been a long time since I've read about this subject, and I was never a specialist in Roman history.
I enjoyed this video, though the music was way too loud for the most part and distracted from the content... overall great episode as always...
hy im new to your channel i have watched a few of your videos and really liked them, anyways shad send me here and i am quite liking it here good job on your channel good luck
Awesome!
You know how to pick INTERESTING topics!
I have been wondering about this for years and years! Thank you so much for making this video, as it finally answered my question: why did they stop using plate?
Also, I notice that there wasn't much between the plates and the skin. compare with, say modern military helmets, with webbing, and space between the plates (or the leather I hear was under medieval chainmail) Was this lack of padding to absorb the force of the blow a flaw in the armour? Or were the usual weapons of roman times (ex. shortsword) not carrying as much kinetic energy as medieval arms (like falchons, and maces), so the less padding was less of an issue?
Great video, just a comment I find the music is a bit distracting.
Dude I've seen a few of your videos here and there. Seems like good videos but you seriously need a good mic. Your mic makes it soooo much more amateur'ish than it'd be if the soundquality was good.
Cheers mate! What do you think of the Celto-Iberian kopis (falcata)?
Is that black gambeson (i think it is gambeson) possible to buy somewhere in the internet?
Also great video, cheers. :)
Not only Shad's videos are entertaining, they are also informative.
A fine video.
10:21 Nice transition!
Came for the comparison, stayed for the music.
If you were wearing a cingulum/baeltus as legionnarys did, you'd have a bit more of that weight distributed by cinching it to your waist. The addition of the fascia ventralis / girdle that is attested to being worn underneath further helps pad / cushion the belt. Your segmentata will sit better if you start wearing a subarmalis under it too (so the plates actually overlap properly at front / back, and the shoulders sit better).
I allow me a small rectification : it's not the discovery of the lance, which was knowing from a long time ago. It's the discovery of the deep saddle and the stirrup which permited to charge at full speed against the for (sorry for my bad english). Your videos are quite well, continue!
Make a video about armor and combat of the pre medieval period.
do you have a full plate European (knight-kind) armor vs Japanese (samurai-like) armor video?
hey metatron! I also wanted to know if you could make a video describing how it is that the romans defeated the macedonians/hellenic league, when you said before that the spear was the king of the battlefield, and also the fact that the post Alexander greek armies also fielded a varied military such as heavy infantry, cavalry, and skirmishers
Nice video! Though, I feel that at times it becomes a bit hard to discern what you're saying due to the music being a bit too loud.
i loved the little back and forth there. this would be closed. tight. with a lase. *clunk*
Hey it is the Gambeson again! :D I should make your character start off with a Gambeson ^_^
What is the music at 4:23 called? Heard it on a lot of CZcams videos, but never got the name.
Hey Metatron, this is something Ive wanted to watch since a long time ago in a good vid: Who would win a battle between the best roman legionary armies and the best Medieval European armies?
Ok, off topic question - where did you get the black shirt you’re wearing at the start? One with the buckles
Also chainmail can be extended or contracted fairly easily, if a hauberk is captured the size can be adjusted without a great expense.
I found this channel by accident, well by curiosity of binge watching the Romans and everything about them. I'm so grateful that I stumbled into your videos. :D
Lance cavalry was a thing in the ancient days as well. Clibanarii, Kataphraktoi. I'd argue the purpose of the less armor was not only due to its expense, but also due to the fact that Roman legionarii were *extremely* aggressive, and more often than not, were the ones charging.
+Sherlock Holmes
It exsisted but did not quite have the same punch.
The stirrup and cantle changed cavalry warfare quite a bit.
TheCrankyCow Parthians had stirrups. There are minted Persian coins featuring stirrups that were brought over from India.
Sherlock Holmes I should have said platform stirrups.
Looped rope or ring stirrups have existed about as long as someone thought it was a good idea to sit on top of an animal.
TheCrankyCow Indians had platform stirrups, which are also featured on coins. Europe didn't feature such things until much later, which is why we tend to believe stirrups didn't exist until they finally became prevalent.
Badger0fDeath Oh how amusing, you claim something is irrelevant without any reasoning? Adorable. So, when I am suggesting that during the indicated time period, platform stirrups existed, you say it is irrelevant because it was in India?
october 2017. thanks for the video.
I would only like to add, that the introduction of the stirrup as well as the lance made cavalry a dominant force in medieval warfare.
+Metatron Might I ask, informative sir, how it is you attained your lorica segmentata?
Epic belated question. What is known regarding the presence of padding in Roman armor? It's generally known that mail and plate armor are generally worn over a gambeson or similar protection to soften the impact of blows, and this is occasionally depicted in movies and other media (albeit uncommonly, as you still frequently see mail worn over just clothing), but you most often see legionaries depicted wearing a lorica segmentata over just the tunic, only sometimes depicting a focale as a concession to comfort rather than protection.
What evidence is there regarding whether this is actually historical, and if so what is the speculated reason for that? If it is historical my own speculation is that it would be the related to the reasoning behind the lack of greaves and manicae, but that's solely a wild guess on my part.
just recently read on warhistory online top 13 things about the roman army. they say chainmail was worn more than the lorica segmentata. coz the plates rusted faster than chainmail since the latter is in motion often. is this true? which of the armors like medieval plate armor, mails, metal on cloth is easier to maintain?
correct me if I am wrong--but weren't stirrups critical for the effectiveness of the lance in the charge as well as the use of swords, axes etc from horseback
where do you buy your armor? Any recommendations?
Thank you for mentioning the self-derusting of mail, many people aren't aware of that :) and by the way: the Romans used the arm protection for a while against the Dacians because of their falx (also reinforced the helmets).
I don't agree on the point that shock cavalry had such an impact (hehe) on the development of warfare, especially because very similiar tactics were used in the past for example in the east in form of cataphraks even though they were more like a steamroller and not a high speed train like later knights.
I would say it had more to do with an semi-professional army, therefore the bulk of the army in medieval times had mostly levy troops which were briefly trained. And actual we see how later on the heavy shock cavalry were useless against the well organised and trained mercenaries like the swiss Reisläufer or german Landsknechte.
Also great video, very epic camera angles. :D
Where do you get that king of amour ? Where
Where did you buy your lorica segmentata I've been looking around on amazon and eBay but I'm a little nervous the will send me the wrong product
At around 7:30 you were wearing a very nice hauberk. Can you please tell me what is the size of the links ? i mean wire diameter and inner-diameter of the links.
The reason i am asking is that i made a chainmaile vest for a friend, but due to the thickness of the wire, (normal galvanized 2mm wire) it was pretty heavy and i would like to try again, in something a bit lighter. The vest i made had rings that were 10mm inner-diameter in size.
Oh, you got a sub from my side, very good info you are giving here.
Nice video. And I definitely agree with you. Evaluating armour needs to include weapons, shields and tactics it was combined with.
I guess the lack of arm and leg protection would only really matter in a flowing battlefield without intact formations. Maybe this is a reason why the roman casualties where so high during the battle of the Teutoburger Forest? The romans seems to have been forced to single combat because the terrain was too dense to form large formations.
Metatron: Does your arm hair get caught in the chain mail? Just wondering.
I am more interested in Late Western Roman Empire armour and weapons.
can you do 5th Century Western Roman legionnaire equipment and armour tactics and weapons video one day?
you should save the advert for other channels for the end of the video
holy shit that gladius of yours looks beautiful
Very interesting, but the frequent cuts in the same shot are very distracting
Not all of the Roman soldiers were legionaries, many (especially in the Empire period) were Auxilia (cavalry, archers, etc.).
Also, as Shad points out in his Katana videos, one big thing to look for is smelting technology, namely, can you get your steel up to 1600 celsius or not? This will play a big role in deciding how much slag is in there, and thus, how strong the steel is.
Can you talk about the muscle cuirass that were used in Rome/Greece?
Where can I find this these soundtracks?
Where's the disable music option?