A little while back, I watched a video asking who would win if the Zulus fought the Romans at Isandlwana instead of the British. I was immediately like, "the Zulus, duh!" I mean, the Romans were cool and all, but the Zulus had guns. Roman armour would be worse than useless because it would provide no protection but would slow them down. And yet, somehow, the creator of the video managed to not even mention the fact that the Zulus had guns. He did very little (if any) research; he just assumed the Romans would win because Romans. Worse yet, most of the comments were an unmitigated gushing forth of Romaboos praising the Roman military machine to high heaven while completely disregard the fact that the Zulus *had guns.* It was an eye-opening experience for me to find out just how many Romaboos there are who will discard all the evidence so they can envision their favourite team as being infallibly superior.
@danwylie-sears113423 сағат бұрын
My first thought for why a particular group of people might not use armor is if their clothing was very protective, and materials for armor were scarce, so that a separate category of armor (distinct from clothing) wouldn't be worth it. The other thing I thought of was very low population density, with correspondingly rare combat. If you have to travel a lot more than you have to fight, it might not be worth hauling armor around. -- As for running at an enemy yelling and dressed mostly in paint, that sounds like something that people would do as part of a tradition designed to limit the lethality of some categories of combat. If your group and and your closest neighbors fight to the death, the winners are likely to be easy pickings for your next-closest neighbors. So no matter what your grievance with your closest neighbors, there's at least some incentive to do some posturing and yelling, inflict a few bruises on each other, get a decent idea of who would win if there were all-out combat, and settle your differences accordingly.
@SilentSandwhich24145Күн бұрын
So, here's the thing. Armour in most contexts require resources. With the Gauls, it's actually an interesting mix, where the nobility definitely wore armour, to the point that the Romans even copied their armour (chainmail in western Europe is believed to be a Celtic invention). But common people would not necessarily have the material wealth to afford armour, so the naked warriors are likely more common people going to battle and doing a "bit". Another thing I should say in defense of Julius Caesar (and trust me, I am personally far more partial to the people he genocided), he had a lot of Gaulish allies too. Despite his Roman imperialism influencing his observations, he was remarkably dry and to the point about his descriptions (and I note that one of the biggest things already identified about his biased view is that he described Gaulish and Germanic deities in terms of Roman ones). Another thing is heat is always a factor. So in the battle of Stamford bridge, the Vikings were unarmoured because it was a warm day and they didn't expect their enemies to just show up. So the idiots had a major disadvantage because someone made a stupid call. The thing is armour is often used, but sometimes circumstances are just wrong leading to their lack of use. As for the Zulu, despite being South African, I do have to say, it is something I need to look into more, but buddy, we get a lot warmer than any Canadian place, and not to mention Kwazulu-Natal where the Zulus are from is exceptionally humid. I would say that in terms of firepower though, a thing I learned about the slave trade was that African countries only received low class gunpowder for slaves, as well as a shortage of bullets. This led many people to use rocks, or bits of flint as bullets which had poorer performance. In particular, what I do know about the Zulu is this: before Shaka, skirmishes were their way of warfare. Yeet spears and fall back. Then Shaka came about and introduced the short spear Asagai, which was made for stabbing, revolutionizing Zulu warfare (and leading Shaka to conquer many of the surrounding tribes and building the Zulu kingdom...through a lot of death [kings are just another form of imperialism after all]). So they had firearms, but not that great, and the main military innovation was in melee combat, which interestingly enough was still the main way Europeans also fought. So on that point, as I said, gunpowder tactics themselves were quite varied. What often happened is that a volley of shots would shock the enemy, and a bayonette charge then routed their formation, meaning that even well into the gunpowder age melee charges still played a pivotal role (though all round mortality went up during this period, as we were using ever more deadly weapons).
@liquidpiss7368Күн бұрын
The slightly strange example of Joshua Milton Blahyi - 'General Butt Naked' - springs to mind. Blahyi was a commander in the 1st Liberian Civil War, who was infamous for going into battle naked and for numerous atrocities. This is often framed as a symptom of his senseless depravity, and as summing up the barbarism of the conflict - and depending on who is talking, the implied barbarism of Africans - more broadly. Certainly Blahyi was an evil man, but when you think about it, that decision makes more sense than it seems. Firstly, fighters in the Liberian Civil War - and certainly in Blahyi's militia - had limited access to useful armour. This was a war mostly fought by hastily impressed men and children, most of whom fought in civilian clothes. Functionally, a pair of shorts and a t-shirt provides little protection against scrapes and debris, and none against gunfire. The cost of fighting naked was negligible. The second point against Blahyi's insanity is that his men wore shoes - the item of clothing which was of the most practical use. Surely a mad barbarian would not have cared if his feet got cut up. Thirdly, Blahyi's reputation for this and his other acts does bring potential benefits. We don't actually know how many times Blahyi and his men fought naked, but we do know the impact this had on his reputation in the war was very significant. Much like the character of Blackbeard versus the man of Edward Teach, we can imagine the character of General Butt Naked presented a much more imposing adversary than the man Joshua Blahyi. In a war full of criminals who committed similar atrocities and which history has forgotten, this one act sees Blahyi alone remembered even now. Whether his nakedness had any tangible benefits as an intimidation tactic nobody will ever know, but given that it came at no substantial detriment, it certainly would not have hurt. While undoubtedly a terrible man, his nakedness when reasoned out seems less a confirmation of his mad lack of care for his own life and more confirmation of the opposite. An attempt to indimidate his enemies in a war where wearing clothes would not have made him or his men any safer. I thought this example might be relevant because it is one of the few modern cases of an armed force fighting naked as a matter of doctrine.
@Ornitholestes1Күн бұрын
The gauls as of my knowledge are widely acknowledged to have invented the chainmail armor that later became the mainstay of the roman army. The gauls fought by Caesar were several hundred years later, after parts of gaul had already been conquered by Rome. This is just like the Zulu fought by the British empire in the 19th century, or the North American peoples whose armor your channel discusses by the 18th and 19th century, which is centuries after those cultures first came into contact with guns or European/Middle Eastern style empires. Similar mechanisms could be at play in those fases. Maybe the gauls (never being a people unified at a large scale) simply did not have the "industrial base" to compete with rome in terms of large-scale armour production, which in turn led to a stronger focus on asymmetric warfare and more lightly armoured troops, which in turn contributed to the myth perpetuated by Caesar that the "barbarian" Gauls didn't have the technology that they were actually the inventors of, although they totally did, and just didn't produce as much of it.
@FusselwurmifyКүн бұрын
I had heard of Romans doing the "noble savage" trope concerning Germans, but had never thought about other aspects. Good observations concerning the "missing self-preservation" myth.
@fuct9569Күн бұрын
Have you heard the of the Cheif who didnt allow for food to be cooked with metal, because it somehow granted magnetic-resistance to bullets? I forgot where i heard this.
@ButtoneyeDecker2 күн бұрын
When the French were engaging the Natchez in 1730’s Louisiana, they were under the assumption they were only armed with bows and the French fashioned makeshift wooden armor. (They didn’t describe it in detail) When they approached their fort they found that not to be the case and were blasted to bits. Their Chickasaw and Choctaw Allies had warned them a frontal assault would not work because of their defenses and guns and that the only way to win would be to deceive them out of the fort into an ambush, but they felt their armor would protect them from their “arrows”. Their Native Allies had to drag the wounded French away because they hadn’t brought enough of their own people to manage the wounded.
@yuron82102 күн бұрын
your iq must be very low
@teyanuputorti79272 күн бұрын
great story thank you for shank you Niawen
@teyanuputorti79272 күн бұрын
great story thanks for sharing
@conorvaughan98702 күн бұрын
Great video thanks
@reeyees502 күн бұрын
Less armour, martial ferocity and fearlessness in death was a literary tool to actually glorify the inferior vanquished enemy. Remember, a justificational tool of every conquering empire or nation is praising the cultures that are now pacified in order mantain a facade of moral/ethical superiority. In other words, the enemy is mythified, as you can see the glorification of the plains indian tribes in shows like Buffalo Bill's circus (included actual indian warriors and former chieftains) and in later western film (abeit being portrait as villians or allies)
@ripHalo00022 күн бұрын
I think both can be true. A historical narrative to demonize people a culture wants to eradicate. In combination with the fact that every genocide is unconventional warfare. As we see in Palestine today, sometimes you've gotta fight a tank wearing nothing but a tee-shirt. Weapons are expensive and even if you lose your allies will get much more use out of dropped weapons than perforated armor.
@cedricburkhart37383 күн бұрын
Let's not forget that the Zulus carried very large Shields. Just because they didn't have armer doesn't mean they were not protected.
@cedricburkhart37383 күн бұрын
I think a Comanche leader was mentioned as having armor.
@jayjacobs17833 күн бұрын
This trend was also seen against the Chinese and Russian communists in the 20th century - these people are so communistic that the death of 20 million in war is a chip on their shoulder. Its projection, since the people on the colonial side of the game are fighting for the interests of the powerful while the colonial subject is fighting for their freedom
@Ticatsfanx3513 күн бұрын
I love your videos man! Watch almost all of them. Gotta ask though, has anyone ever told you you look like canadian songwriter Andy Shauf? I see it everytime lol. Take care.
@mellowsign3 күн бұрын
The first video essay to make me go from 'wow yeah that's actually a really good point' to belting out a Stan Rogers song in the span of two seconds.
@chrisamon45513 күн бұрын
@Malcolm P.L. 1) Don’t worry about the noise dude! Just get yourself a little microphone! You’re golden. 2) I’d really like to hear your thoughts in a video about Mississippian armor and warfare. Based on what we see in the Conquering Warrior Figurine Pipes from Spiro and the Guy Smith Crouching Warrior (all manufactured at Cahokia) warriors could go into battle with a full suit of wooden and leather armor, or they could go into battle essentially naked but with a shield. Are we seeing class differences here? Are exotic materials required for the making of a full suit? If not, why wouldn’t all their warriors fight in armor? I always thought that the Conquering Warrior is a chieftain or king, forcing his enemy’s head between his own legs, and bashing his head, much like you see in Egypt and Sumer, and even among mesoamerican societies in their art over and over again.
@MZero80993 күн бұрын
Thanks for the thought, this makes a lot of sense
@Chair-by-a-bench3 күн бұрын
'Are there any legitimate reasons why a culture might choose to not utilize armor?' My response to this is tall shields, like those found in sub- Saharan Africa. While this probably weren't cheap, they were probably still cheaper than armor. Additionally, they were more conducive to pitched battles and a lot more comfortable to carry than armor was to wear.
@kalacaptain48183 күн бұрын
one thought I'd had about the 'naked gauls' myth - while gallic nobles definitely wore armor, they were also a military caste. if you're in a scenario where you're trying to defend your culture and nation against an actively occurring genocide, as the gauls were against the roman republic, you'd probably mobilize every single person that could hold a spear. And in that scenario you probably simply won't have enough armor for everyone
@valerievalerievalerievalerie3 күн бұрын
Very interesting and informative perspective, thanks for sharing. Also yeah filming outside is such a pain lol but totally worth it in my opinion, much more enjoyable than filming inside.
@gorcrow3 күн бұрын
I really liked Black Robe because it was unafraid to show natives as humans who like to swear and have sex, which is something that the Noble Savage stereotype absolutely prohibits them from doing. As to historical innacuracies, I can't speak to that, I have no qualifications. But just that aspect of the film (I also read the book, and the film is more or less faithful to it) is amazing to me - to see natives doing things that even other really racist movies/books don't let them do. Speaking in slang and swearing, getting pissed when people are uptight and don't share supplies, having sex because they are humans with human urges. Honestly I think the colonizers are depicted as absolute morons in this film, too. Like when LaForge had the opportunity to hide and run away from the ambush and instead just walzed up through the middle of the fight to read someone their Last Rites... really really stupid. I always saw this book/movie as the worst parts of humanity on both sides clashing, it's not a movie about heroes but just about wanton suffering. Edit: I should add that all of LaForge's actions to me seem extremely idiotic. He goes around, putting himself in positions where he will suffer greatly - for what? Actually dying and being a martyr for the cause is seen as a reward in and of itself, which is just incredibly stupid to me. I get it - his ideology says that we are supposed to suffer in this world so we can attain paradise in the afterlife, but that just seems soooo moronic to me.
@gorcrow3 күн бұрын
I should add: The stupidity of LaForge extends to his entire religion, and the desire to proselytize just for the sake of it - he accepts that he must suffer and die for his ideology, with zero concrete reward at all. Death, in his case, is actually seen as a reward - he gets to be a martyr for Jesus or whatever. Absolutely moronic
@MasoTrumoi3 күн бұрын
Great vid Armour becomes less common depending on material conditions, such as it being less common in some humid and swampy areas, or because large shields are more ecological, or because they simply don't have access to materials that are good for that purpose (such as on certain islands). But everyone had SOME kind of armour, they just either didn't have it widespread, or didn't use it at certain points. It is definitely a colonialist myth that there was no armour in certain cultures. Cloth/quilted armour at the very least was present everywhere. What IS true is that firearms-as-primary rendered armour borderline pointless, and thus if you do not have access to your own firearms, or if you have differing tactics but must face firearms, you still probably shouldn't bother with armour. So we have all these examples of indigenous peoples using guns against colonizers, or using newer developed warfare that was used for anti-gun, which if you cannot block it, you might as well be as light and comfortable as humanly possible.
@lukeoz72543 күн бұрын
Awesome vid
@racehen3 күн бұрын
Malcom I think you’re the first KZbinr I’ve seen include a warning that this platform is addictive and it hit different, I appreciate it
@reaperwithnoname3 күн бұрын
Very good points.
@noahsyc13 күн бұрын
Australian aboriginal people have never been known to wear armor to my knowledge. Their fighting was known to be very lethal with spears and woomeras and clubs and boomerangs and stone knives and axes. There are many types of shields from hardwood and bark and also some aboriginal people wore (still wear) possum, roo, wallaby, quole skins including chaps described to me as 'like native American chaps ties to our legs' from a Ngarigo elder. The thicker skins could maybe act as a kind of armor for spears
@angela_merkeI3 күн бұрын
Except that Caesar never wrote about the Gauls fighting naked. Those accounts come from Polybius and Diodorus Siculus and are a lot more precise and say that only a small minority did fight naked. In Polybius' account it was a single instance and for practical purposes.
@zenosAnalytic3 күн бұрын
Re: "the barbarian warrior myth", a really good example of this active in popular culture(not that we need one beside common depictions of indians) is Conan the Barbarian. The Conan stories have ALLOT wrong with them, Howard was very racist and eurocentric, but, because he was Irish-American and had a bee in his bonnet about depictions of Gaelic peoples, he WRITES Conan wearing armor constantly. And yet from his first appearances outside of Howard's control, he's portrayed wearing just boots and a loincloth. You're absolutely right that Euro culture equates a lack of armor(and really just a lack of clothing, period), to "barbarian" and "uncivilized". It's rhetoric, not truth.
@terrynewsome66983 күн бұрын
I would like to make the counter that this was more of a suicide troops practice, and was not unheard of thing through out history. Men throwing themselves at the enemy in a religions or drug fueled mad assault for personal honor, religious glory, or desperate last stands is documented all around the world. Modern examples could be drawn from islamist suicide fighter in iraq in the rise of isis, WW2 Chinese grenade vests AT troops, the moron bolo men seen to this day, machete troops of the Haitian revolution, etc. In ancient times you could look to 5th century Spartans switching from bronze and yok armor to just a helm and shield, or medieval Hindu rajputs who would strip themselves of armor and throw themselves into the enemy when defeat was at hand. Is it a common practice no, but did men do it for very personal or desperate reasons yes.
@tryllon47743 күн бұрын
This is potent brother, you gave me lots to think about.
@TheGribblesnitch3 күн бұрын
I'm from Australia, and there is indeed quite a lot of perceptions around pre-colonial indigenous life that are quite erroneous and fuelled by imperialism - however it seems that your point on how a society without armour would not have seen much fighting, seems to be the case. I finished reading Bruce Pascoe's 'Dark Emu' today funnily enough, and he asserts that indigenous australians lived with very little violence, with it primarily being enacted through law or the occasional act of vengeance. He brings up the case of the Buntingdale mission, where inter-aboriginal fighting was witnessed, but only in the proximity of the mission, where the enemy nations were forced to meet. Having done only a cursory search mind you, it nonetheless seems to be the case. I have found woven body armour from the fly river in papua, and there was a tradition of colonists and colonial authorities gifting 'breastplates' to appointed "chiefs", however these were not actually used in battle, nor resembled actual armour. Pascoe also makes mention that indigenous weaponry also had other functions, e.g. shields could work as dishes for carrying items and so on - further suggesting that indigenous society was one with little lethal fighting, which works in tandem with the lack of armour. If anyone does find indigenous australian body armour however please let me know. And no, the Kelly Gang don't count >:(
@flyboymike1113573 күн бұрын
Famously, the Romans were slaughtered upon first contact with the Gauls, who wee known throughout the ancient world not just for introducing soap to Europe and marcing in step when their highly professional pro-knights switched from skirmish to linear formation. But also for being the first Celtic people to widely adopt the chainmail armor invented by alpine celts. Gauls were also written to have used similar armors as contemporary Greek, Persian, and Turkic peoples, in addition to some possibly unique boiled leathers with properties which read much like modern soft armor. Rome only succeeded by stealing technology from their enemies. And Gallic weapons and armor were the first things they stole. It wasn't even a secret. Their Hispanic gladious was a nakedly a simplified version of the celtic cladivous/greek xiphous but with a straightend parallel blade profile and shiv handle construction. They didn't pair chainmail with two or four plate kardiophylax like the celts and near-eastern chainmail wearers would, because that was seen as too expensive. Their versions of celtic tower shields were also eventually simplified in shape to make them quicker and cheaper to build. Instead of making shoes of rope and canvas like the Gauls the Romans used leather strips woven loke rope into sandals. The only thing that went untouched were the Gallic helmets and the animal skin headdresses used to imitate an emblem of nobility in Indo-European culture to draw young chieftain into single combat for glory.
@jamesdavies7193 күн бұрын
Just noticed your disclaimer that this platform is addictive and designed to siphon your money. I like the way you do buissness sir, may you be well.
@samurguybriyongtan1463 күн бұрын
The Gauls are thought to have invented mail! They had shields at the very least. The language of Empire like to show that their enemies are tough, to show how great they and their civilization is. You are so right.
@ΕρνέστοςΣμίθ3 күн бұрын
In the "Commentaries on the Gallic War" Caesar doesn't speak of the Celts at large doing the naked suicide charge. The upper Celtic class wore mail armor and the poorer folk wore combinations of leather and cloth armor. The naked suicide charge is the prerogative of a particular class made members of cultic brotherhoods who fought like that as a form of redemption from sin/crime or devotion. The Romans themselves had a similar concept called devotio, in which the leader(s) of an army vowed to Mars to return victorious or die trying. They didn't strip naked but charged on the enemy even if their own army was routed. The last recorded instance of that actually happening was for a Roman consul during the last Samnite war in the 4th century BC, and the concept was probably forgotten by Caesar's time.
@Flozone13 күн бұрын
It sounds also a lot like berserkers from Norse culture(s). Its not really people who are part of a standard army or standard society as such. They are radicals and they are usually feared by their own people.
@fiddleriddlediddlediddle3 күн бұрын
I've been privileged to avoid a lot of the naked stereotyping because a lot of the historians I'd look to were pretty responsible with their depictions such as my favorite Epimetheus or other channels like Invicta or Kings and Generals. They'll usually depict warriors wearing what the archaeological record says they wore.
@abyssoulzenith3 күн бұрын
Maori had armor, Zulu had armor. But in the same regard as crusader knights plate armor being a type of military strategy or secret, you wouldn't want to give your enemies all your secrets. Nor would you let them keep theirs. Most African armors are too ancient or archaic to be thought of as proper armor to modern researchers. Im not talking about Africans having iron armor. But BRONZE armor, stuff that predates greece, and the indus valley. Im talking about rope armors, the things you could see an entire family slaving to produce for a young man to wear into battle. Or in a tribal dual. We see a few pieces of this armor across multiple countries. I will show a few examples here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJqkfJ-anLF2htk kzbin.infoh8p3T9JkIJ8 kzbin.infoHEA3hAH9UZU Now I chose this clip because it shows an opponent blocking with the rope fist, even though he gets knocked the F out. I hope my martial mania was of some use to anybody in the comments.👹
@HomeOnTheEdge3 күн бұрын
"hate filming outdoors" valid, but it sure is pretty
@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah3 күн бұрын
Okay, I looked it up. Ceasar wrote that some Gauls fought naked, as an exception to the norm, as a way of seeking glory in battle. It was meant to insult the values of the Gauls, but it was not meant to depict them as technologically inferior, so when we think of "barbaric" as meaning primitive, that is apparently rather anachronistic of us; seems it was less about insinuating they were primitive and more about insinuating they were lowlifes.
@nevisysbryd7450Күн бұрын
Yeah, what is often missed here is that it was alleged that _one_ specific tribe had a tradition of fighting naked, not the entirety of the Gauls.
@NicholasproclaimerofMessiahКүн бұрын
@@nevisysbryd7450 Interesting. I only did a cursory check.
@gabfortin19763 күн бұрын
👍🏼 Commenting for the algorithm
@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah3 күн бұрын
I think of the Gauls as being comparable to the Romans. What we today call lorica segmentata was at the time named for being Gallic, and that was the most high-tech armor of the era. I think the Picts were characterized as technologically primative by the Romans, but I don't know that they tried to characterize the Gauls that way; that characterization may just be a modern post-Victorian pop-culture notion.
@wyattw97273 күн бұрын
Pretty sure there's actually a relative commonality of subsaharans forgoing armor because their ecosystem is just too harsh for heavy equipment, shields get the job done well enough, and in some west african examples I recall armor was barely present because warfare would just involve spats of widely dispersed blobs of men loosing arrows at each other for a couple hours and only a couple people getting injured from unlucky hits. Of course simply presence of armor doesn't mean the vast majority of a culture uses it. Nubians in the Ancient era had access to armor, but the vast majority of Nubian cavalry only had shields and it served them well enough judging by how they savaged Roman infantry on multiple occasion. Poverty really though is the main driver of lack of armor for any military unit vs its presence in the culture itself, albeit limited to elites. Some cultures of course never even reached the point of truly having warfare so hunter gatherers isolated from the development of agrarian lifestyles just chill out and never mass produce protective equipment. Various Amazonian tribes never even really did the whole warfare thing so they lack any tradition of armor, and there's that one island off India I forget the name of with contact-less locals living it up like it's 15,000bce.
@daveburklund22953 күн бұрын
Another thought provoking video. Thanks.
@Reginaldesq3 күн бұрын
I read "Caesars conquest of Gaul" many years ago. The book was written by Julius Caesars personal author who followed him on campaign but has to be taken with a grain of salt because at the time Rome was experiencing or about to experience civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompei. So, the book was political and trying to make Julius appear as an incredibly talented General. Still a great read.
@Reginaldesq3 күн бұрын
Great video. After watching this I did a little research on my part of the world (Oceania). Australia: I can find no record of Australian Aboriginals using armour other than shields. Maybe because as hunter gatherers most mobs had to be on the move regularly and everything had to be carried by hand (no domesticated animals). New Zealand: It seems that the Maori did not wear armour although they were well used to combat, interestingly their missile weapons, mostly limited to spear or rocks (was that a factor). Polynesians: Other Polynesians groups also appear to have not had armour, although, reading an article that said they didnt have armour, mentioned that some men wore shirts of woven coconut fibre LOL. Using coconut fibre maybe points to a lack of suitable materials for armour? Note: I just found a link to coconut fibre armour from Kiribati. It has a similar raised section behind the head as the armour you have made. Papua New Guinea: Cuirass made of woven grass fibre and woven rattan. I mostly agree with your hypothesis. Armour is beneficial if it offers some protection, but if it cant stop your opponents weapons then its a negative so dont wear it, so when facing colonisers, dont wear it, so, colonisers never see it.. That said, there have been accounts from colonisers that were thought to be incorrect that later turned out to be correct, so, it can go both ways, which is frustrating.
@dashikashi47343 күн бұрын
I’ll have to find the documentary, but there was a large skirmish filmed between two rival groups in Papua New Guinea. Neither side wore armor and used tipped arrows, but they broke off the engagement after a few (relatively) minor injuries and insults hurled at one another. The theory about the lack of lethality behind a culture’s warfare leading to a neglect of armor certainly holds water.