21 күн бұрын
Пікірлер
@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf 3 минут бұрын
Don`t wear armour in a Aussie Summer mate
@HawkmanWalker 6 сағат бұрын
I disagree a bit regarding handheld guns because in the Hussite Wars handheld guns were featured prominently & too big success by the hussites & Jan Zizka. Then we have the black army by Mathias Corvinus & his use of arquebuses
@lukeueda-sarson6732 48 минут бұрын
The Hussites succeeded because of their mobile fortification use, not because of their handguns - which were greatly outnumbered by crossbows. Likewise in the Black army, handguns were very much in the minority. It's wasn't until the 16th century that firearms became game changing, and even then, it was initially only from behind defensive positions: pikemen were still the main offensive arm for a very long time.
@HawkmanWalker 6 сағат бұрын
Matt: "lets look at medieval art" The show: *shows a 19th century painting*
@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis 7 сағат бұрын
Really grateful for the host letting Matt give long-form answers withouth interrupting. It really ups the quality of the content. Wouldn't have visited this channel if it weren't for the choice of guest.
@ChrisGWGreen 9 сағат бұрын
I've been (a little annoyingly) thinking about this all day. Why not invade to Faggio to begin with?
@TheReykjavik 9 сағат бұрын
The idea that armor is better distributed than a backpack is pretty suspect. Certainly armor was designed to be as mobile as possible for a given level of protection, and that is largely done by putting as much of the weight as possible onto the waist. A well fitted backpack does the same thing, but weight on your forearms and on your feet is at the end of a lever arm and is very tiring, and armor has to deal with that where a backpack doesn't. Compare going for a run with a 5lb weight belt vs with 2.5lb weight around each ankle. If I had to march with 70lbs of kit, I'd rather it be in a good pack than distributed in a good suit of armor. An ill-fitting pack would be worse than well fitted armor, and ill-fitted armor would be the worst of all.
@jondickinson2864 9 сағат бұрын
The Proclomation line was never meant to be permanent.
@derekthered687 9 сағат бұрын
Host looks so disengaged and like he's going to fall asleep.... Seems like he just wanted short simple answers from Matt.... Which isn't how Matt is. 😂
@puliturchannel7225 5 сағат бұрын
I think he looks absolutely engaged but still having a time restraint and having to do his job... I personally believe he had ten myths to debunk, but they ended up on five :)
@texasbeast239 Сағат бұрын
I saw the host nodding, smiling, laughing, and raising his eyebrows quite often. His reactions mirrored my own, often. Perhaps what you are picking up on is that he appears to be watching a monitor below his camera, which means that we see a bit more of his eyelids than usual, and unfortunately that could be perceived as him becoming drowsy.
@TEverettReynolds 10 сағат бұрын
> If The Romans WON The Battle Of Teutoburg Forest That's not the correct question to ask. The Romans won the Dacian battles but lost the province anyway. Even if they won all the battles in Germania, they were no longer in a position to completely subjugate the population like Julius Ceasar did in Gaul. Rome got soft. Had they won the wars in Germania and gone all Julius Ceasar on the population, killing millions of Germans, enslaving millions more, subjugating the survivors to pay the taxes and get drafted for the next war, there would be no "tribes" left to invade Rome. Hence, Europe's history would be very different.
@thelonelybolter8245 13 сағат бұрын
Matt Easton GOAT ;)
@Kadesbattleground 13 сағат бұрын
Genoese crossbowmen would stake their pavise shield down and fire from behind it.
@dominicnzl 14 сағат бұрын
16:36 looks like the crossbowstring will lob off his thumb when he looses the bolt
@davidpnewton 15 сағат бұрын
Could archers shoot through armour? Yes. Mail is armour and is extremely vulnerable to archers. Plate armour on the other hand? Much different proposition. Arm and leg plate absolutely could be and was pierced by arrows. Breastplates and helmets on the other hand? Absolutely NOT. It literally took a modern 131 lb draw weight compound bow to punch through a replica 15th century cuirass. That was done earlier this year. A 160 lb longbow absolutely could not have done that.
@dennisleighton2812 15 сағат бұрын
Brilliant video!
@pancho1993 16 сағат бұрын
Matt is so obnoxious, can't stand his channel.
@fridrekr7510 16 сағат бұрын
Do you happen to be one of Shad’s morons?
@texasbeast239 Сағат бұрын
Et tu mor
@guygibson1957 17 сағат бұрын
Any Battle of Agincourt analysis has to take into account that although the French knights were well covered against the longbow, their horses were less protected. Any info on horse armour Matt?
@duchessskye4072 16 сағат бұрын
Horse armour was not that common and most knights/men-at-arms would've not had barding. The ones who did would've had principally leather, with only a minority having something like mail. Plate barding in 1415 would've been exceedingly rare even among people with barding.
@awilk418 14 сағат бұрын
The cavalry charge was not the decisive portion of the battle at Agincourt though. The main French battle line advanced on foot after the initial disastrous cavalry charge.
@scholagladiatoria 13 сағат бұрын
The French had learned at Crecy and other earlier battles that cavalry charges against archers behind wooden stakes was a recipe for disaster, so they looked to other plans. The English archers traditionally deployed sharpened wooden stakes in front, exactly to protect from a cavalry charge. At Agincourt most of the French army fought on foot as a result, but there was a cavalry attack which was supposed to flank around the sides of the English army. This did not work because of the land chosen by Henry V, and that is partly why we have this scene in Shakespeare of the French cavalry attacking the English baggage/camp. Horse armour was a thing, but was expensive and restrictive for the horse, reducing their speed and increasing the amount of time it took to deliver a charge. That said, the French DID use armoured cavalry (Italian mercenaries) later on, against English archers, to great effect. It seems that barded/armoured-horse cavalry was highly effective against archers, but it was a huge and expensive resource to muster.
@guygibson1957 18 сағат бұрын
Really interesting.
@DanielGreen-j4c 19 сағат бұрын
Captain Context strikes again! Bravo
@justdl 20 сағат бұрын
Metal on stick is the best.
@dogmaticpyrrhonist543 21 сағат бұрын
"How do you know he's a King?" "Well, he's not covered in mud"
@matthewmillar3804 21 сағат бұрын
The way I look at sword and armour affordability would be car and house, respectively. Some people can only afford a run down apartment, others a mansion on the shore. Some people can only afford a rusty chevy, others a Ferrari. But go back far enough in history and cars are so rare that only the rich could afford them. No idea if that's right, but that's how I see it. 🤔
@MbisonBalrog Күн бұрын
When I watch modern armored combat I see more swords than spears.
@matthewmillar3804 21 сағат бұрын
I think that's because it's safer to use swords and modern people are more risk-adverse. Not that that's a bad thing.
@scholagladiatoria 19 сағат бұрын
Modern armoured combat, such as seen in bohurt (eg. HMB, Battle of the Nations etc) forbids thrusts. Thrusts are the main way of killing armoured opponents, but of course if you forbid thrusts for modern sporting and safety reasons you will not see spears, which mainly thrust. Swords used in a historically correct way are used almost entirely differently to what is seen in bohurt, where the objective is really just to bash the armour and throw the person on the ground to get them out of the competition.
@fridrekr7510 16 сағат бұрын
They use swords because swords can easily be made safe, compared to spears, poleaxes, halbers, or even hand axes and maces. Don’t draw too much from modern sporting combat.
@MbisonBalrog Күн бұрын
A spear is like Garand in WW2. The sword like Tommy gun. Or for Brits, Lee Enfield and Sten. Both spear and sword had roles.
@MbisonBalrog Күн бұрын
I disagree about swords. If you wearing full plate armor sword is better. Is more wieldy than spear. Since already wear full plate don’t need keep distance with spear. Heck you can grab spears with gauntlet. If you archer run out of arrows will you have a spear? No likely have sword.
@garrenbrooks4778 Күн бұрын
An archers primary weapon is a bow. The sword is their backup weapon.
@MbisonBalrog Күн бұрын
@ when run out of arrows do they not join battle in another role?
@jeremiahmiller3310 7 сағат бұрын
Not really... when mounted as cavalry, it's going to be a lance. Sword is too small to do the big smashy stabby charge thing from horseback. And on foot, it's probably going to be a poleaxe, better for dealing with others like you in full plate. Sure, pull out the sword for less armored folks.
@MbisonBalrog 7 сағат бұрын
@ when off horse not using lance. In fact during early modern warfare cavalry had gun then used swords.
@jeremiahmiller3310 7 сағат бұрын
Yes, of course. And no one on the battlefields of that era was wearing full plate. Different jobs, different tools.
@keyenbentley8179 Күн бұрын
I love both these channels 🙏
@SAS1122334455 Күн бұрын
as always presenter has a face like he's about to fall asleep
@soupordave Күн бұрын
Captain Context!
@AlexNevsky144 Күн бұрын
James you said that Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy is an ancient historian. He doesn't look ancient to me. He looks like he is in his mid-30s or early-40s.
@Fundas-bikes Күн бұрын
Absolutely loved this, talk about the ancient sling! It's hard to find information about it, I would love to know more about the historical facts regarding the slings
@cal2127 Күн бұрын
theres actually a good channel on ancient slinging
@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Күн бұрын
Read Jean Froissart for examples of slingers in medieval warfare. They saw use in large numbers & had some success.
@Vendell_23 Күн бұрын
Daggers, poleaxe and warhammer was the go to weapon when fighting on foot
@chengkuoklee5734 Күн бұрын
Correction- dagger is backup weapon, not primary pick.
@duchessskye4072 16 сағат бұрын
Warhammers are absolutely not a go-to weapon when fighting on foot and we don't see them carried by footsoldiers almost ever - nor do we have sources implying they were popular picks even for knights when on foot.
@Chesirecat111 Күн бұрын
Very good show, but lousy summation. The entire examination of the legacy of the battle stressed that nothing much would have gone differently had the Romans been victorious. Expanding to the Elbe wouldn’t have been profitable, and would only have moved the sanctions a little further east. They probably would have invaded Britain, just in a different context perhaps. How that could be summarized as saying that it was one of the most consequential battles in history is puzzling.
@scholagladiatoria Күн бұрын
A fun chat! Thanks for having me on.🤘
@duchessskye4072 Күн бұрын
I do not quite like the comparison of swords to pistols. A pistol is in the modern army not all too important - some armies don't standard issue pistols at all and there's rarely a situation in which a pistol serves better than a rifle. This is absolutely not the case with swords in medieval combat, of which all available sources tells us that they were expected to be used in more or less any engagement.They might be secondary weapons in that they're usually not what you go into the fight holding but regardless the expectation that you will lose/break/drop your primary arm and draw your sword is essentially always there without fail. Not only that, but the fighting getting so intense as to breaking your backup weapons is also expected. Knights usually carry two swords (one on the person and one on the saddle) and Pietro Monte suggests that on top of this also carrying two maces. Juan Quijada de Reayo in _Doctrina del Arte de la Cavallería_ shares his weapon progression preference which goes lance > estoc > arming sword > mace > dagger (with the statement that you move on to the next weapon when the previous breaks). This is why soldiers are almost invariably required to come armed with swords in equipment statutes of the time. They're expected to need them. That is why, if I am to give a modern analogue I'd call a polearm something like an MBT and a sword something like an IFV. Both are necessary as they both serve different roles and neither is more important than the other as they both contribute to a whole doctrine of engagement.
@crimsoncrusader4829 Күн бұрын
Or swords as Carbine/assault rifle and Polearm as MMG or mortar.
@fridrekr7510 16 сағат бұрын
Yes swords are more comparable to carbines or assault rifles. Most modern soldiers don’t rely on ARs as their primary weapon either, even in the infantry it’s typically AR + role specific weapon/equipment. I don’t understand why you want to compare hand weapons and vehicles though.
@duchessskye4072 16 сағат бұрын
@@fridrekr7510 mostly because I couldn't think of a better comparison, and imo the comparison fits on a different scale with the same underlying principle of utilizing several tools for the job.
@breakerdawn8429 14 сағат бұрын
Your analysis is so good actually
@Farweasel Күн бұрын
Thanks Matt - You just caused me to realise WHY the Spanish 'Conquistador' metal hats were the shape they were A low velocity bullet's more likely to skate off a helmet which looks like a pointy ship's prow than one which looks like Endevour's 🤔
@JamesMcCloskey Күн бұрын
Always great to have Matt Easton! 🗡🛡
@MarcRitzMD Күн бұрын
Why didn't you use your great wireless mic, Matt!
@Dominator046 Күн бұрын
Here from Matt's social media. Glad to see Times Radio History have him on.
@garethfergusson9538 Күн бұрын
Matt Easton is everywhere recently it's great
@thecollierreport Күн бұрын
HERESY BECAUSE HERESY her beauty cannot be denied nor the glory of her name. It may be a myth but it is a great myth and you unbelieving heretics shall be whipped with wet noodles, pool noodles, until you cry uncle.
@martinahager4931 Күн бұрын
Please Continue like this. Wonderful.Maybe more graphic examples.
@alexwiercinski4510 Күн бұрын
The Polish took Casino,ask these so called history experts how many British units refused to attack at Casino.
@sir_dreadlord_on_blitz7042 Күн бұрын
"Land warfare with an increased risk of drowning"
@sebastianruhland5198 Күн бұрын
Theories that are true are said to be untrue in this video. Theories that are not true are not judged here.
@peachtech5128 Күн бұрын
Watch the Doku from James Cameron, they counted ALL damage, Bismarck WAS a Monster!!!
@jannarkiewicz633 Күн бұрын
No "Adventures of Robin Hood." and no Errol Flynn mega star.
@sylviusleonard5144 Күн бұрын
Love me Drach, simple as. been following him since before he used his real voice
@DoakFelix-qr8uw Күн бұрын
I think this guy knows what he’s talking about but he’s the “expert“ and he keeps saying “you know” you know? It’s really distracting you know? I find it really bothersome you know? You’re the expert! You know? You’ve been asked to give a definitive answer or at least your strong opinion… You cannot answer with “you know?” You know?
@CT9905. 2 күн бұрын
The Bismarck was a Super Ship…. She sunk the HOOD with One Shell!!!
@ericwood1569 2 күн бұрын
Could the channel explore a "what-if" Spain had joined the Axis powers?
@adamstrange7884 2 күн бұрын
The laser penguins guarding the ice made all the conspiracy theories!