"Impenetrable" leather shield tested with arrows - Part 3

I was shown an original document explaining how to make a shield covering that makes it 'impenetrable to edged tools'. This is a BIG claim and one I needed to look at, so I started looking........
In part one I covered the original style shield with the recipe, in part two I made a slight modification and treated a section of 'blackened gambeson'. Now in part three I shoot the heck out of the shield with a 130lbs and a 160lbs longbow simulator. A part 4 is coming where I hit it with everything I have.
PART 1 Making leather shield armour - Impenetrable? • Making leather shield ...
PART 2 Leather shield armour - part 2 • Leather shield armour ...
Arrows vs Armour 2 - is the simulator the same as Joe? • ARROWS vs ARMOUR 2 - I...
Does a greased shaft penetrate deeper? • Does a greased shaft p...
For budget medieval replicas of fantastic accuracy and value todcutler.com
For commissions and custom work todsworkshop.com
For merch todsworkshop.c...
For those who enjoyed Arrows vs Armour todtodeschini.com

[@ramennight]

It seems like that extra layers of leather or leather with glass and iron could be worthwhile over where you arm rests, and then without leather everywhere else so it doesn't get super heavy.

[@gmanbo]

This would be like a metal bose in essence but leather based instead of fabric. Not sure about historical accuracy though. I suspect if you had chainmail on the arm area the regular shield might cover it. So in essence this could be a poorer man's arm protection.

[@JanoTuotanto]

The glass and iron coating was ment for stationary pavise shields

[@ardemus]

This is an interesting thought. Though armor on the arm would both be easier to carry and likely do the same or better job for the same or less weight.

[@gmanbo]

@@ardemus And this is an entirely logical reason very solid front arm bracers exist.

[@hanelyp1]

@@JanoTuotanto On the one hand a stationary shield. On the other, a much larger shield, and used where an arrow sticking through 20cm is less a problem.

[@vapertrail6669]

My grandfather taught me to mix black sand with heated pitch and to use that as a binder for the boiled leather to the planks. He said it was how Northmen made arrow proof shields. He would also sprinkle crushed coal powder on his anvil when forging so maybe he was just nuts. 😂

[@brianj.841]

He may have wanted the coal powder for the added carbon?

[@tylerphuoc2653]

@@brianj.841 Coal is like one of the easiest ways to source nearly pure carbon at that time, really

[@mosadcoow]

You need huge amount of coal to get some carbon content in iron, little bit of powder would do nothing

[@DPXerxes]

Perhaps to counterbalance the amount of carbon that gets lost on the surface through oxidation? @@mosadcoow

[@peterspatling3151]

You can use coal powder when drifting holes while forging. If you try to punch a hole into a solid piece of steel, what happens quite often is that your punch might get stuck. To prevent that you can use a lubricant. There are dozens of modern ones, an old one is simply charcoal that has been crushed. You put the coal into the hole that you are punching and because of the heat it will start to ignite and create a gas. If you now add the punch on top of that and hit the whole thing with a hammer you will seal of a tiny pocket in which the gas is being compressed, it pushes against the punch and therefore prevents it from getting stuck. Learned that in blacksmithing school, works like a charm :) Maybe that 's what he did?

[@PokeRemcards]

Tod is getting noticeably better with his crossbow aim.... like getting scary good accurate...

[@krissteel4074]

Yeah i don't want him shooting needle bodkins at me, they're frigging terrifying

[@markcorrigan3930]

What is the range? 25-30 meters?

[@braddbradd5671]

Yeah he should stick to crossbowing than spear throwing or throwing in general

[@Riceball01]

But he certainly didn't do himself any favors by making the different bands so unevenly spaced. If would have tried to make each band as close to the same size as each other as possible to make hitting each band a bit easier.

[@DevinDTV]

"scary good accurate" alright calm down

[@mrkiky]

I wasn't done laughing at "greased shafts penetrate better" and Tod already hit me with "8 inches through the back, you might wanna stop that" 😂

[@Countryboy071]

😂😂😂

[@deanrutland9047]

“Ungreased, unwaxed, little bit dirty…”

[@vinny142]

5:50 WHat you have to remember also is that in this test every hit is a complete worst-case scenario; perfect aim, perfect angle, and still it only gets through that little. Also: even if that arrow does manage to wound you, it's a scrape on your arm whereas with a lesser shield it might be arm-shattering damage. It's a bit like complaining that your car's seatbelt is too tight: the alternative is to fly through the windshield. Take your pick.

[@markcorrigan3930]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKesq6mLjsmYgbs

[@SelfRighteousBasterd]

Excellent comment! Much to often we take tests that are being performed under "perfect storm" conditions and stamp them (beyond any doubt) as a standard occurrence in a battlefield scenario. Again, great comment! Cheers!

[@amendus]

very good point

[@NotTheCIA1961]

These are also at relatively close range and without any angle, like you might be getting if somebody is shooting down a wall at you, in battle, or what not. If you're at these ranges against archers, those archers are going to be shitting bricks.

[@tods_workshop]

Agreed - this is in the worst state for the shield, but then we can know what it does in the worst case. Of course if you angle it etc, it will always be better

[@zoidbergfluffybutt4991]

Tod's genuine authentic enthusiasm for this is infectious 😁

[@fire304]

Agreed

[@KWW0321]

That's what has kept me coming back year after year!

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and I love learning about this totally niche stuff

[@sciverzero8197]

Tod, what if you cover just a small portion of the shield with armor. For example you could cover the narrow arm band in the center with the armor, to better protect your arm, and the upper left corner, to better protect your face and so the arrows don't get in the way when trying to maneuver the shield into a position in front of your face. You could reduce the excess weight of the shield while still retaining the increased pen resistance in the places you would need it the most: The places where the shield is in close proximity to your body.

[@trikepilot101]

There is also the option of the double layer of leather as you describe and a single layer over the rest of the sheild.

[@papalaz4444244]

So this begs the question, why not put an iron sheet under the shield where the wrist is? The answer is probably the expense but.... I think I would be happy paying a bit more.

[@nickbob2003]

@@papalaz4444244I would imagine leather was very much cheaper than iron or steel so if it preformed the same at iron why not use the cheaper material. I may be off base and I’m sure there are places and times where metal was cheaper or a comparable price to leather

[@SuperFunkmachine]

@@nickbob2003 By the English civil war metal armour was cheaper then buff coats. But people went for the nice, warm, flexible and not really armour buff coats over the hard metal armour.

[@hrodberht3152]

​@@papalaz4444244 You would want the metal sheet on the outer side of the shield to make use of its deflective properties. If it were placed between shield and arm padding, it's little more than an extra layer and you might as well just go with cheaper options. And indeed this is something that was done. Round shields typically had shield bosses, and kite shields often did, too. I'm not sure how common this was for heater shields, but I would also assume the answer to this is probably expense. If you were willing to spend more on a shield, you would likely pick a larger kite shield over a smaller heater with a boss. I would think a larger surface area is a better justification for the extra weight.

[@Skallagrim]

Very interesting tests! Normally I consider extra weight quite a hindrance in combat, but for that type of shield it's less of a problem. Large center-grip shields like the scutum could easily weigh twice as much as the reinforced heater shield you made (granted, for more protection). A strapped shield is easier to hold, especially with a guige strap. So it might be worth the extra protection. Then again like you said, with armor the arm underneath might be safe even in case of the lighter version.

[@jacqirius]

sorry but have you ever held a shield for more than an hour? battles do tend to wear you down in many other ways and i think there is a good reason why weight has always been a major concern for shields and armour. even without considering the hindrance in combat that you already mentioned

[@Skallagrim]

@@jacqirius Oh, I know. Just saying there were heavier shield types, so clearly sometimes the added protection was seen as worth the exertion.

[@milire2668]

yoo skall

[@kdolo1887]

@Skallagrim Are you allowed to associate with Tod, considering your questionable political stances on certain things in the past? I know Matt Easton is purging the impure, I was wondering if this was true of everyone in the sword community.

[@milire2668]

@@kdolo1887 wtf u talkin bout?

[@grbdevnull5611]

I've seen several sources that indicate the weight of a heater shield as around 8 lbs. That seems like about the weight you might get with the half tanned leather and no glass or iron. That seems like a good compromise between weight and extra protection.

[@gmanbo]

Could we get some specific's on where you have seen these.

[@markcorrigan3930]

Aren't greek, roman and celt shields even heavier?

[@grbdevnull5611]

@@markcorrigan3930 I've seen scutum (Roman heavy shields) being listed at as much as 20 lbs, but I am not sure about Greek and Celtic. Bear in mind those were often larger overall (compared to heater shields), though.

[@grbdevnull5611]

@@gmanbo KZbin appears to have eaten my reply. I did not save specific sources, but I believe that the funerary shield of Edward the Black Prince is one of the main references for an 8lbs shield. I may have read multiple things citing that. I would have found most of my info on the myarmoury forums that Tod mentions regularly.

[@gmanbo]

@@grbdevnull5611 it's fine KZbin deletes any comments with links

[@austincann4772]

If blackened simply means pitch, I imagine it probably has more to do with waterproofing to a certain extent. The last thing you'd want is a soaked gambeson that's twice as heavy and gets moldy after a day. For the shield, even when they poke out it's not that big of a deal, if I were holding it the one place I'd worry about is where the arm straps in. Maybe do a look at Matt Easton's video about 15th century boss griped shields. They may have started to use those because of this exactly, holding the shield out for missile fire, then strapping it close for melee so it doesn't get wrenched away from you. Who knows?

[@vde1846]

Hadn't even thought of that, but it makes sense. Basically turns your gambeson into a oil-canvas raincoat.

[@tods_workshop]

The manuscripts do seem to imply that it is about better protection

[@pRahvi0]

@@tods_workshop ...which makes me wonder: if the gamberson is wet, does it affect its resistance to weapons? I'd assume it might reduce it's ability to dissipate energy through moving but I might be completely wrong as well.

[@wilhelmpotgieter1328]

I could see this shield recipe being particularly useful for a crossbowman with one of those large Pavis style shields. Particularly in a pinch when you don't have time to set up, so you just turn your back to the enemy walls/formation while your reloading.

[@Andreas-ov2fv]

I like it for them, too. Genoan crossbowmen (at times) had a dedicated pavesarii for two or three crossbowmen, so the weight would be manageable on the field and would travel with the baggage train. Keeping in mind those shields weren't commonly mounted, but held up, reducing penetration would be vital.

[@tods_workshop]

Yes it would, but also they were thicker anyway and the plain wood is probably, but not definitely lighter

[@mangalores-x_x]

​@@tods_workshop The interesting thing about Pavise is that in the area of Czech, Southern /Central Germany and Poland they got extremely popular around the Hussite Wars and came in all shapes and sizes. One reason seems to be the difference in construction as the center plank overlaps the ones on the side. One aspect seems to be that it may be simply more cost effective and easier in construction, but also that it may be sturdier because the planks are braced against each other instead side by side. Also the preferred fighting style of most town militias was to fight from field fortifications (the Hussites proving that technique with their mobile forts of war wagons) and in shield walls formed with Pavises with lots and lots of missile weapons sniping from this position. In essence turning a battle into a siege war. Would be interesting if different types of shields show some different behavior as well, small Pavise variants were even in some parts favored by men at arms and knights.

[@thefatefulforce8887]

There definitely is a difference between the treated sections and the untreated. I am going to revisit my 100lb Shield test as well now that I have a Ballistic Torso and and am also going to put a light gambeson on it to see when the arrows do penetrate, (like they do in yours and my tests )if they carry enough energy to then also penetrate the gambeson underneath. I think Shields and Gambeson historically was a common combo so we have to remember that while these arrows are sticking out the back, the shield forms the first layer of an overall "composite". I know my tests are with a 100lb bow (80-90j tested on a Chrono with Will Sherman Arrows) so a bit lighter than your simulators but still a very applicable battle weight for the period. Thanks for this test, Tod. Love your work.

[@tods_workshop]

Keep us posted

[@thefatefulforce8887]

@@tods_workshop will do :)

[@thefatefulforce8887]

@@tods_workshop kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZ6lnqmcdpVmrq8si=oPp7az9vOy2kfdDe test completed. Very interesting results.

[@MrBubmer]

This shield is one hell of a super early composite armor. And seeing Tod's analysis on the manufacturing side of things always make it super interesting.

[@walkir2662]

I'd be astonished if the concept of composite armor wasn't known in the Classical period. (No, wikipedia, it was invented before 1950s tank armor...)

[@QuantumHistorian]

@@walkir2662 Probably even the bronze age. Someone must have noticed that soft padding behind metal plates was a good thing...

[@smpk9667]

I suspect the glass and iron fillings are more about dulling blades than slowing arrows, looking forward to the blades against that shield video.

[@agurdel]

Important point. He mentioned in the beginning ( 2:10 ) that it was supposed to be against edged weapons and not specifically against arrows. Glass glued to leather is basically sandpaper. A sword can cut through the outer layer of leather into the "sandpaper" without being deflected like a metal reinforcement would.

[@hanelyp1]

As I understand "sword and board" combat, the sword blow would more often be taken to the edge of the shield.

[@krokogator]

But the only original with such a hard layer I know of is a small mantlet. (Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, W 1)

[@andreas_rr]

i could also imagine, if the iron and glass pieces were not too fine, that a blade pushing against those might simply increase the area where the force is exerted on, instead of a thin line, it will be a thin line with some smaller chunks added. that might help to mitigate cutting into the wood, since the blade wont really cut small pieces of metal/glass, but rather push them into the wood, and thus loosing energy in the strike due to it being dissipated more. However, that would probably need metal/glass pieces in the size of roughly 0.5-1mm radius..

[@EriktheRed2023]

Tod struggling to get an arrow out of the target in the intro had me giggling. Of course, for every arrow going in, you need to remove one, but we rarely think aout that bit. 😄

[@andreas_rr]

exactly. most archers will know the trouble of arrows hitting wood and not getting out easily. even with a modern (carbon fiber) 60lbs bow, if i hit the target's post, the arrows will penetrate maybe 4cm into it and are really hard to get out. Even when working with a knife to break the wood structure and pliers to pull the arrowhead out, it can still be quite a struggle.

[@mkey570]

I love how he tests everything and if it doesn't work that's okay, also a result. Always great videos and I've learned loads about math, physics and other interesting things I never could get into in school. I try to learn something new each day and Tod, you definitely have helped in that regard many times. Thank you!

[@tresenie]

One of the helpfull things for me as a kid were comics like Asterix, they are not always as accurate but did learn a fair few things from it.

[@tods_workshop]

I liked them too

[@dreyethel1]

Hey Tod, I've been loving this series! A (perhaps idle) thought I had was if the plane of the shield might make a difference when comparing these formulae. I would have to guess that someone using a shield would not necessarily present it so that arrows are striking it head-on, but would likely hold it at an angle. This could have 2 effects, first, just like armor, hits would be more likely to skate off without much damage at all, but second, and more relevant to this experiment, the friction of the iron and glass mixture might matter significantly more when an arrow has to travel further at a diagonal through the shield compared to the shortest possible distance head-on.

[@gagarin777]

Wouldn't angling the shield mean that body was exposed in return? And while a person that is alone may be able to compensate by standing at an angle to the archer, but what about if the shield holder is in a formation?

[@Matt_Alaric]

I have to disagree. Angling a shield just gives you less coverage behind the shield and makes you an easier target for the archer.

[@another3997]

​@@Matt_Alaric A lot depends on how the archers are utilised and where they are. If they're aiming directly at individual targets, relatively close, your approach would be different to if they were launching ranged volleys en masse. Your torso is a much bigger target than your lower legs, so sacrificing some protection down there to improve head, neck and torso protection might be quite realistic. Like soldiers of today, archers would aim for the centre mass, the biggest and easiest target.

[@dementisse]

Same thought about attack angles to mitigate arrow's penetrating power came to my mind. Even though it would be advantageous to angle your shield against a single archer, that is a very specific scenario. If we assume a combat situation, there are a lot of other factors that may nullify this advantage or make it inapplicable. For example, if you are shot at from several directions you are better off maximizing shielded area. If you are shot at from above, below, or if you have to protect yourself from both melee and ranged fire at the same time, or even protect other more vulnerable targets from being hit by drawing fire onto yourself, these situations call for their specific shield application tactics. In other words, yes you can increase your protection by angling your shield, but leveraging this advantage intentionally is going to be possible in a very small number of very specific situations.

[@tods_workshop]

Yes an angle is better, but firstly arrows are flying all over so you will never be able to definitely have it an angle and also the area covered decreases as you angle it, so at 45 degrees where the protection will be much better, the coverage is much worse.....Trade off

[@vladdracul2379]

Only through trial and error will we begin eliminating the wrong answers to find the correct ones. Truly fascinating that the amount of stopping power from JUST the fabric to the glued up, hardened fabric was astounding. You're talking about a 50% difference in penetration. That's insane. I never in my wildest dreams, until I found this channel, would have thought that cloth would be so effective against stopping arrows. Truly astounding.

[@bl4cksp1d3r]

I've made myself a roundshield once, with a few metal reinforcements. It weighs ~4,5kg and that thing is HEAVY on the arm.

[@Specter_1125]

What kind of wood did you use?

[@bl4cksp1d3r]

@@Specter_1125 12mm plywood, beech I think, my next one will be made of poplar (I might confuse the woods, some German names can be a bit different)

[@MonkeyJedi99]

I've only ever made LARP shields. My first was 3/4 inch (19mm) and it was pain in the shoulder and back after less than half an hour. My next was made from an aluminum (aluminium for you crazies over there) saucer sled and it was not much more pleasant. Number three was made from a plastic saucer sled with 3/4 inch (19mm) seat cushion foam on the face covered with deerhide fixed to a thin canvas. That one was a little heavy after a few hours, but it was worth it to alwasy have a comfy pillow. Number four was a joint effort with my brother and made of roughly 6mm thick bullet resistant red-transparent polycarbonate. That was a shoulder breaker, but he loved it because he could see through it. Number five was made with two cross-laminated layers of corrugated plastic "board". It was light, but it buckled the second time I tripped and fell on it. Number six was my last and made of 1/4 inch (6.35mm) pine plywood. It was a DREAM for weight, and the back side was puttied and sanded then painted with chalkboard paint so I always had a notepad on me. - Where were we? Oh yeah. I have great respect for anyone with the skills to make period-accurate shields. I know I would have to put in a lot of failures to get the skills myself.

[@Dwumper]

"Heavy shield day". I love that. I'm now imagining a knight getting with a foul mood and thinking, "today feels like a heavy shield day." Your point about the added weight being a significant downside is a good one. It would be interesting to know what the weight would be if it was all like the orange area, maybe that's the sweet spot between weight and protection. If it's say around 3.5-4 kilos, I can easily imagine a knight who is, let's say "bulkier" asking for a shield made like that.

[@markusmencke8059]

Just a thought on that black gambeson not working - it may be too hard. Do you know how a bulletresistant vest works? I is a flexible material with high tensile strength. And the flexibility is what makes it work at least for small arms like pistols. The material doesn’t stop the bullet instantly like an armour plate, it flexes and the fibers stretch a small amount. So it slows the projectile down a bit more gradually. The idea with pitch sounds interesting. That may give the fibers in the gambeson a bit more strength while keeping some of the flexibility. It may also “fill the gaps” in a way that a arrowhead has a harder time penetrating through. Won’t likely be perfect, but reducing the penetration just a few centimetres can save a life… Fantastic video again. Thank you, Tod. ❤

[@JanoTuotanto]

Hard glue makes fabric brittle. If thread is dipped in superglue it snaps like spaghetti

[@tods_workshop]

Yes, but the mechanism of failure is different in this case

[@aner_bda]

I love how, even back then, people were keen enough to think about composite materials for protection. It's just goes to show that even though they might have had the same technology, they were still smart enough to puzzle it all out. Awesome video as always!

[@2bingtim]

Several years ago Thegn Thrand(another KZbinr) made a shield of just 6mm pine, with rawhide over the front & back. The pine was mostly just a skeleton to hold the rawhide. But the results when tested were amazing. Incredible resistance to arrows & blades. So maybe rawhide is the thing to try rather than leather. It also makes a very light & weildly shield.

[@2bingtim]

Happiness is shooting stuff with arrows!

[@trikepilot101]

I will look up that video. Fun fact, spruce has a better weight to strength ratio than pine.

[@Intranetusa]

If Todd is using half tanned leather then it basically has a core of rawhide with only the outer layers tanned into leather. If he is shooting fully tanned leather then it would be all leather.

[@marcelomariano3586]

Again, here you are making great videos, Tod !!!!

[@jeremiahstanson8484]

Easily one of the best channels to show how awesome science projects/scientific theory could be. (I used your channel as curriculum for my son over the summer). Great channel, love your videos.

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and glad it is useful

[@EriktheRed2023]

Thoroughly enjoyable! And not a bad demonstration of how techniques and materials affect outcomes, including when arrows meet shields. Looking forward to the 'edged' episode!

[@YouPlague]

Tod, this was still a successful test of the black gambeson. The result was negative of course, but the test was successfully executed with solid trustworthy result.

[@CarlosRodriguez-dd4sb]

Medieval Chobham!

[@axistec]

Thank you Tod for all the effort in sketching, building, doing, filming and producing this amazing films. It's a joy to watch really. We transport ourselves into the medieval world and always learn something interesting abot their lives and warfare ways. While watching most KZbin videos I do it on the go and jumping forward, yours I make time to see and enjoy it. Making myself conformable, with a brew to enjoy the whole way. 😊

[@JosefGustovc]

Cool video Tod! For the powdered iron and glass, I'd go with a coarser powder. I suspect its benefit is that the chunks themselves would blunt the arrowheads upon impact, since they would be harder than the steel tip of an arrow.

[@kapytanhook]

Or even just a pane of thin glass. Ye olde ceramic composite armor xD

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@kapytanhook a thin pane of glass would be *hella* expensive back then. crushed glass is probably much cheaper since it'd be either garbage from the glassmakers, or slag from smithing using sand.

[@tylerphuoc2653]

@@5peciesunkn0wn The bits of glass left stuck to glassmaking tools after blowing or shaping has occurred accrue carbon slag and all sorts of grit and crud. Makes them useless to most consumers, but the properties of broken glass aren't unduly impacted by that fact either

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

@@tylerphuoc2653 Thanks!

[@jamespierce-tg7we]

Really think the crushed glass and iron slag ideas have merit since those would be cheap by products and be closer to a ceramic. Which can be harder then the pure material. The curved shield plus only putting the iron and glass in certain spots has merit. Other question would be would they perhaps go with lighter would to make up for the leather, iron, and glass. Keep up the good work. Really cool

[@graham1034]

A "Do greased shafts penetrate better" video could really draw some new viewers.

[@ericmitchell985]

My first thought is to wonder, how does this perform compared to simply a shield made of thicker planks so that it weighed the same? In other words, are the different materials providing a composite effect, or is it simply that the arrow has more stuff to displace and waste its energy on?

[@marz6770]

The shield seems the same thickness on each part, so I think the difference in the quantity of material shouldn't be that different. But would a shield composed mostly of glue be better ? Well I'd like to see that test. However the weight wouldn't be the same, it would definitely harder to make and more expensive.

[@llearch]

@@marz6770 I think eric here is suggesting to try a 5kg wooden shield to compare against the 5kg composite shield, to see if it's just that it's the 5kg that's making it good, rather than the 2.3kg variant with all the holes in it previously. Obviously the all-wood shield is going to be thicker than the wood+2 layers of leather, but it's possible that the reason the arrows aren't going through is just because it's heavier - which means if you made a wood+leather shield thin enough to get it down to the average 2.5kg, it'd not be any better than just plain wood, which would be interesting in another way. Not to invalidate your suggestion, mind, which is also interesting, but it'd be testing something different.

[@marz6770]

@@llearch No no you're right that's another way to look at it that is simpler. I just assumed the weight of the composite shield was mostly wood.

[@tods_workshop]

Twice the thickness would be less than the weight of this and probably just fine for protection

[@llearch]

@@tods_workshop Which, of course - since we know they didn't - begs the fascinating questions - why didn't they do that? What did they know that we don't? And how might we figure it out? I'm on tenterhooks for the next episode, really. ;-]

[@ihcfn]

Looking forward to the edged tools bit. Love the little smile when Tod says " I've got quite a lot of edged tools. "

[@DemianX6x6x6X]

always a good day when tod posts more vids, looking forward to part 4 mate!

[@iFukuyama]

Thanks for consistently creating subtitles for your films.

[@gagarin777]

My guess is that tanned leather would be pretty cheap to make in the period as compared to adding thin metal layer to the shield. Also metal needs to be maintained to prevent it from rusting, so it was time and labor consuming. I think this tanned leather variant could really be something that really was done back in the day. Glass powder however it may be a stretch. In contemporary body armor there is often ceramic involved to break up the bullet, but it really needs to be in a solid form to actually work. In powdered form it is useless. So maybe recipe meant glass chunks rather than glass powder, or powder works but only for stopping the blades. I guess we will see in the next part. cheers

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

Yeah, also, metal can be shaped in ways leather can’t. Why add steel to a sheild over using that same bit to make armor?

[@andresmorera6426]

I would like to know if and by how much iron of the period was more expensive than (half-tanned) leather. Iron bucklers did exist in the same time period (14th to 15th century) as heater shields similar to the one in the video. But I wonder if iron shields of similar size were contemporary. Such shields did exist and were at least used in later periods in Western Europe, and I think at least in some cases were proof against bullets.

[@Greensleeve11]

So either William the Silent or Maurice of Orange (can't remember 100%) experimented with bulletproof shields in the late 16th century. Specifically for a sort of Praetorian guard style troop, designed for bodyguarding (which makes me think it was Maurice, following William's assassination). They were spectacularly successful. The soldiers wore half-plate or three-quarters plate, sword, pistol, and a planked shield covered in (I believe) iron. Yet this was considered a failed experiment. The shields were considered far too heavy to be useful. Fatigue and ability to maneuver on the battlefield was considered far more important than the ability to be bulletproof. In other words, a similar experiment a century or two later concluded much like you did: Weight and utility matters as much or more than protection on the battlefield.

[@mikeyboy1234567]

Interesting video, the different bands of treatment on the shield is enginious. I bet it would be worth while to have a bit of extra protection such as the leather (or some metal) over the section in contact with arm, rather than the whole shield. Could also be that certain "ranks" would be more likely to use something like this. In essence an officer who might not need the shield for anything but stopping arrows and wouldn't be carrying it at all times may get more use. Always great fun to watch these videos.

[@sheilamorrison1954]

Truly amazes me how advanced their thinking was. They effectively created composite armour which actually worked really well. We didnt come full circle on composites until the 50-60s for tanks!

[@tods_workshop]

They have got their way before us with enough time for us to forget. My favourite is wooden fletched crossbow bolts - the flights are inset on a wing section curve and they were doing this from at least the 14thC

[@GallowglassAxe]

Incredible video as always. I love how professional and scientific you get with these. I have a couple of things to add about the leather shield and the blacken gambeson coming from my Gaelic knowledge On the leather shield. I know the that Irish and Scottish would wrap their targe / target shields in leather. This is most famous in 17th and 18th century Scots but they were doing this in the early 16th century as well. One particular shield that the Northern Irish and Western Scots used were wicker shields wrapped in leather. The youtuber Stoccata has made a couple and says they work great. Now I don't know enough about leather to know what thickness was used or how it was treated but I am curious on the test of wicker shields. Though looking at how the Scots used the targe it may have been used at an angle instead of holding it dead on. This would mitigate a lot of the penetration power of the arrows. As of the blacken gambeson I have a source about Scottish warriors wearing gambeson coated in pitch. " John Major (1512), who wrote that the common people among the highlanders rush into battle having for body armour a linen tunic manifoldly sewn and painted or daubed with pitch, and covered with deerskin." In the book World of the Galloglass by Sean Duffy also mentions about coats being coated in wax. It is theories that the pitch and wax was used to make the coats and gambeson water resistant. Coming from a wet climate and being on the water the gambeson would take on moisture and get really heavy. Duffy also mentions about wanting to experiment wax gambeson to see if they are more buoyant.

[@Heimthegi_Landsoldat]

Dear Tod, I have literally just signed up to youtube, for tge sole purpose of making this comment. About blackened gambesons, the King's Mirror (Konungs Skuggsja) specifically states that the fabric is soft, as that same cloth that is used for the gambeson, is also used for the warriors underwear. Furthermore, it also specifies that this kind of armour is the best type, when fighting on ships. I therefore find it highly unlikely that blackened gambesons would be hardened with tar or pitch. Personally, I believe iron dye to be more likely. With regards- A history student, currently writing about medieval Danish armour. PS: Subscribed.

[@Lokarsh21]

Ok, so my impression from these tests is that the leather with the iron and glass filings does make quite a significant difference, but it also suggests to me that the choice to return to bosses and center gripped shields in the coming centuries, as shown by Matt Easton, might originate here: with the improvement of ranged weapons and their power

[@kantetoast]

My first thought on the gluehardened gambeson was „yeeeaaah even if you manage to wear it half way comfortable, it seems to be more „brittle“ than the regular one but i could not imagine it gaining enough hardness to defeat an arrow“. So i am not surprised by the results, and even less as i think about mankind, trying to defeat kinetik energy always results in some kind of ductile materials mainly (steel, kevlar, sandbags, polymer in securityglass, …) Another thing that came to my mind is: The additional leather on that shield will certainly not have the same arrow stopping ratio without the wood. I even think you can get rid of the leather on the backside and the difference is unmeasureble. Due to my hobby i shot and pulled out countless arrows in and out of many materials. My guess is, the front layer of leather gets cut by the arrowhead and pulled into the wood along the passing shaft. Could be, the leather works as a kind of glue/seal, improving the friction between shield and arrow. To back that up, it could be tested with: no leather on the back, loose leather on front, ridicilous thick leather and hardened(?) leather.

[@user-wf5qj1zv3z]

Maybe the optimal would be to put just a band of the leather where the arm is so the arm is more protected and the rest of the shield as is

[@das_gruuben]

Okay, now follow me on this one. How about, instead of iron filings and glass, you made the outer layers of leather, then a few layers of something readily available in the middle like horse hair. Not just globbed on, but slather the inner layer with glue or pitch and lay on a layer of horse hair or jute running horizontally. Then another layer of glue followed by another layer of hair going vertically. And so on. I think this would essentially be a medieval version of something like carbon fiber or micarta. But I think that a layering of adhesive and fiber between layers of hardened leather would work well and be relatively light. Not sure if anyone would have thought of this back in the day, but I think that you, Tod, could put it to the test with both aplomb and the Lockdown Longbow. Thanks for the content, it's amazing as always!

[@somewhere6]

Have you ever considered testing the efficacy of Chinese paper armour?

[@neunelfturbo]

Dear Tod, maybe I have myth for you to test in a future project. When I was studying mechanical engineering at the universty my professor for material sciences told this story in one of his lectures: in medieval times smithes used to mix iron filings under the food for their ducks. The intention of this was, that the digustive system of the ducks enriched the filings with nitrogen and made an nitrated steel out of it. The duck feces were collected and further processed and forged to a medieval high tech steel for weapons. I have no sources or evidence for that. I'm totally aware that ducks shouldn't be fed iron filings in modern times. But maybe someone can verify that story and some can provide a process to simulate the chemical reaction. Keep your great work up. Greetings from a German fan of yours.

[@LolTollhurst]

The weight is about equal to an FN minimi. Considering all the other crap we carried at the same time, this shield construction seems entirely ok from a user perspective (imho)

[@wierdalien1]

Minime is weighty mind

[@feryth]

You're only holding this in one arm though

[@killerkraut9179]

@@feryth With a guige strap it would be less problematic!

[@MrTrilbe]

@@feryth and a fair few of the people holding it in one arm were either raised from a young age to do it or worked very labour intensive jobs, there's documentation of people being Knighted on campaign at the age of 16, meaning they were fighting before then and training a long time before that, or were lucky.

[@jintsuubest9331]

But you aren't swinging your minimi, no? Shield is relatively fix if you are trying to stop projectile fire. But in melee, shield is a very dynamic thing that's moves around a lot.

[@Schmidt54]

It takes a lot of the kinetic energy away. That is indeed extremely good.

[@LednacekZ]

how much would the weight difference be between full red, full orange and full yellow? It could be that the most extra weight is the red part. I would be fairly happy with a full orange shield over yellow. The penetration difference is quite significant between those two. BTW, the Zulu found out that having wet lether shields helps to stop the British musket fire. Will a wet lether shield perform better versus an arrow too?

[@andreas_rr]

red and orange are basically the same weight (the metal and glass powder might be in the realms of 30g or 50g at max, i'd think) , and the 5.2kg and 2.3kg he mentioned referred to full red and full yellow respectively

[@erling921]

Tod, thanks for your videos! The amount of work standing behind them is really amazing. Especially as a former HMB fighter, I absolutely love what you (and the other guys on this channel) do here :)

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks

[@Specter_1]

Finally!🎉🎉 We get to see what happens, love your videos.

[@Acolis]

i find your knowledge to be really amazing about a really cool subject that never seems to get the deep dive. i really like that you test and have data to backup your claims, and for that i thank you

[@tods_workshop]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@euansmith3699]

The opening shot of the shield getting hit by multiple arrows in quick succession gave me strong "Hawk the Slayer" repeating crossbow vibes. Chunk! Chunk! Chunk! Another fun and informative bit of experimental archaeology.

[@EmilReiko]

"Do Greased shafts penetrate better", you are entering Matt Easton territory with that one

[@hanelyp1]

My experience with paper mache and composite layup is the adhesive needs to be applied to each layer, enough to properly wet but not a excess. A roller, squeegee (or vacuum bag) to squeeze out extra adhesive helps. Applying glue to soak into an already assembled quilt would not be the preferred method. Especially with components that won't easily squeeze through the fabric. I've heard of armor made of lacquered silk in the far east. Glued linen seems an obvious western analog if the method were known.

[@lok3kobold]

It leaves a lot of fine tuning and work to prove anything, but as a pilot study this is VERY interesting!

[@calvingreene90]

The orange section did a real good job of deflecting arrows away from hitting it. //snark//

[@Beanedict_C]

This one had some particularly satisfying sounds

[@simonmoorcroft1417]

I have an interest in ancient warfare and modern warfare. The U.S experimented with siliceous core tank armour in the 50's and 60's. Soviet tanks had a couple of layers of dense glass fibre in resin as part of their hull armor and used silica sand (Kvartz) and ceramics in their composite turret armour. Basically that layered shield is composite armour in the same way as modern 'chobham' composite armour. Each layer with its different material properties serves a specific purpose. Some layers are designed to blunt the tip of projectile, some are designed to rob it of velocity, while another is designed to redirect its trajectory. My guess is that the layers of leather combined with the crushed glass, iron filings and glue actually work in a similar manner. The sandwich of different materials is designed to slow the penetrating object and fractionally 'turn' it, altering its trajectory and inducing a small degree of shearing force and a tumble to the projectile. I will take a punt that against an edged weapon the sandwich of different materials will induce a twisting motion into the striking edge and so will start to turn the blade a little and reduce its cutting power.

[@TrollDragomir]

The problem with glue infused gambeson is that it's too stiff to work as a soft armor. That could also be the reason why arrows went deeper on the glued gambeson - it did worse at dispersing the force of the impact. That, and hide glue is not very water resistant. Shields and scabbards were covered with gesso for that reason, otherwise if they were exposed to moisture for a length of time (and we're talking mostly in the context of longbows and British Isles warfare, there's a LOT of moisture on a war campaign) they would soon start to rot, which I think might be the main reason why they opted for quivers to be made just of tanned leather, or other more water resistant materials (early medieval birch bark quiver findings come to mind).

[@TonberryV]

The glass and iron filings probably act a lot like kevlar does in a modern ballistic vest. Spreads the impact energy over a slightly larger area and that's enough to prevent good penetration. I would imagine this would be an awesome covering for a pavise. Excellent video, as always!

[@lengordon1362]

This is the first I've seen of the series. I'll have to go back to see the others. I really appreciate your thoroughness and candour in your experiments. Always time well spent .

[@hulkthedane7542]

...and when you are wrong, you openly say it, because that is a result of your testing, too. 👍👍👍.... I love seeing that. Not trying to prove any particular point, just to get wiser. Keep up the good work 👍💪👍

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks and yes it is important

[@bl4cksp1d3r]

FINALLY! I've waited for this so long

[@MarkHarrisonBNE]

“You really wouldn’t want to get poked with these things”. That’s some good advice 😋🤣

[@c567591]

Tod, these are amazing. This is some great analysis of the technologies and how they actually worked in a practical way. This is priceless info. Thank you.

[@YanDoroshenko]

"Do greased shafts penetrate better?" is the best video title in the observed universe. Observed by me anyway.

[@tods_workshop]

A very accurate description of the video content

[@Peter-vq1iv]

Hello Tod, I enjoy watching your workshops. If you ever run out of ideas, you can try shields and armor against wizard powers: lightning, fireballs, icebolts and the most deadly spell against every heavily armored knight, quicksands. Weren't those times full of magic? In any case, a good idea to attract an easily bored audience. But you can still check how an ambush in the forest with cutting down trees on a column of soldiers works. Or whether medieval tanks protected against any weapons, I meant Hussite wagons. Or spikes in a covered hole in the ground like pinji traps in Vietnam. Or a collapsed bridge over a river while marching, or in full armor it was difficult not to drown.

[@blakewinter1657]

I'd rather have arrows sticking out of my shield than out of my body. So even when we see arrows penetrate, I always think 'Better the shield than me!' This also explains perhaps why earlier shields had steel bosses. I'd imagine a rounded steel boss would be quite hard to penetrate and would protect the hand gripping a center grip shield, for people who didn't have a lot of armor on their arms.

[@RogerS1978]

Still interested on what layers of wool or fibre would do, like in a Targe. That and the studs made them pistol proof to a certain extend (video test on youtube).

[@trikepilot101]

You mean this one? kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2LOlXV6g9OXabc

[@mattlentzner674]

We need some tests with the target angled. Tank armor was tested with a 30 deg angle from perpendicular. They knew even in WWII that 90 deg impact angle wasn't realistic. You're essentially putting the armor at the biggest disadvantage possible. A perfectly perpendicular shot would be a small number of actual hits. There are all sorts of interesting things that can happen when the impact angle isn't perfect. I love the content by the way. Just it could be that much better.

[@gotbaka3]

Absolutely love these practical tests on strange crafting techniques and weapons. More of this please!

[@peterwolf4230]

Keep in mind that the heavier shield includes glass and iron filings in the red section, that could be a fair bit of weight. Also no leather in the yellow section. But a 5kg shield that protects a lot better, seems reasonable. Romans used a 10kg shield I believe.

[@killerkraut9179]

I think a guige strap reduces the feel of the weight as well!

[@bill_heywood]

Really interesting experiment. The coating does give excellent protection but if the whole shield was covered then it might be 13lb, that's like wearing a small dog on your arm. It's hard to see how anyone could fight hand to hand effectively with such a heavy shield. The bare wood gives you sufficient protection whilst still being useful What would be interesting is to compare the leather and glue coating with a thicker wooden shield of the same weight.

[@patrickardagh-walter6609]

Excellent video Tod! At that range for a target that size, your aim is to be commended! This is the kind of experimental work that we just don't see anywhere else.

[@tods_workshop]

Thank you on both counts

[@FlavioLanfranconi]

Bring on Matt and some of his edged weapons as well for part 4. 🙏🏼💪🏼🗡️

[@Cahirable]

The blackened gambeson results don't surprise me. Aldrete et. al's test showed that glued linen was less effective than quilted linen for a given level of thickness. Of course, they tried to spin it as glue being more effective because you need fewer layers...ignoring that their thick layers of "authentic" linen probably actually weighed more overall compared to their thinner modern linen which, again, offered the same or better protection for a given thickness. Re: the King's Mirror, there's no mention of pitch in there. That's modern suspicion, not original text. As always, I think the Lübeck jack's lampblack and boiled linseed treatment is the blackening the King's Mirror suggests. That makes it waterproof and much harder wearing. I also think, as I've said before, that the "shield" in the text is a wooden former, not an actual shield, and this recipe was for hardened leather armour rather than a shield covering.

[@henriknemeth3370]

It most probably is a recipe for armour, considering that there is a text written in Arabic from the 12th century concerning the manufacture of a similar leather composite armour.

[@greghelms4458]

One of my favorite channels. Tod!

[@tabull8180]

I much enjoy the dissapointed grunts that Tod makes when he misses. Like he feels betrayed by the arrow.

[@tods_workshop]

I was betrayed - a good word for how I felt

[@Ranstone]

Tod: Takes scope off. Also Tod: Sub 9MOA grouping first try. You're a good shot with iron sights, man.

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks

[@TrogdorBurnin8or]

First theory I can find is Scott Woodruff's suggestion that the "Blackened Gambeson" of the King's Mirror (~1250, Norway) is a way to make a very thick fabric that does not quickly rot when it gets wet. "Wide shields and chain mail of every sort are good defensive weapons on shipboard; the chief protection, however, is the gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened, good helmets, and low caps of steel." "he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth" " He should also have a good shabrack made like a gambison of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, for this is a good protection against all kinds of weapons. " "Soft" seems to preclude preclude hardening, but thickness of the fabric is its own protection... until it gets rained on or gets splashed by a wave and becomes a leaden anchor that takes days to dry out. Could be an iron-based preservative, could be something like a one-sided waterproofing layer surface treatment. I'm aware that they waxed canvas for watertightness... maybe something similar but with pitch, or with wax + magnetite?

[@tods_workshop]

Thanks for that and yes soft and pitch covered don't seem to go together

[@michaelpeters6659]

Every time I see a new Todd notification we are all set 🎉

[@FinjeFuchsherz]

It was really nice to meet you at the Hurra2023. I hope we will see you more often on Reenactment Events in Germany:)

[@tods_workshop]

It was a great event

[@foldionepapyrus3441]

I think here we are seeing rather more the effect of composite materials being greater than the sum of their parts than the added leather and glue in its own right doing the extra work. I expect the benefits are rather more because the glue and leather being a bit elastic helps the wood resist splitting down the grain and wants to close that tear up. With the glass and iron probably helping only a little mostly by providing a harder material to blunt the tip and more mass for the arrow to move, though it may also help the glue lock the layers together and spread the impact over more of the leather. So I expect you could probably go very very thin leather and glue layer(s) and still get much, perhaps even all of the benefit shown here. I may be horribly wrong on that, so testing would be required of course. If you want to go further Tod might I suggest doing a similar shield construction with much thinner leather, and perhaps just a layer of glue to attach a layer of the iron filing and glass on their own, along with a shield constructed of much thinner wood so the leather and glass layers as you just demonstrated will then bring this new shield back up to that more weldable weight. That would give us a better idea of how much it is the extra mass, the materials, and the compositing of them.

[@hanelyp1]

Or cross grain wood layers glued together, which I understand the Romans used.

[@wyattw9727]

Today we discover that iron filings and double leather is obscenely protective, and Tod is a poor man's William Tell lol. I'm really quite surprised just *how* protective both leather options are. The iron filings in between the leather layers really is such high protection it effectively changes the shield from a weapon into armor itself for the wielder. Even the double leather without iron provides so much protection compared to naked poplar where you'd best be wearing plate undernearth or else your shield arm is going to need a lot of stitches.

[@Deruzejaku]

Medieval recipes cryptic enough to make you one of a kind xD

[@SaveliyShabanov]

Just started watching, and already know that video is awesome.

[@thegheymerz6353]

The shield covering formula could have been for a pavise shield. More of a heavy mobile defense sort of thing. Loved the video!

[@johndilday1846]

I just wanted to say that I love the Bowie knife that I got from you! It is a very useful knife, very comfortable in the hand and well balanced and has a good edge. Thanks very much!

[@beepboop204]

about time you posted some new content! i need you, my internet dad, to post stuff so i can watch it with my actual dad!

[@brotherandythesage]

Well those were some unexpected results so keep up the good work! (Of course now all my RPG characters have to find a buyer for their ineffectual black linen armor.)

[@KnightlyNerd]

There are accounts of native Americans (prior to the widespread use of gunpowder) wearing heavy leather shirts as armour, with sand and glue sewn between the layers. I think that this idea of a particulate between leather layers DEFINITELY has merit.

[@LuxisAlukard]

It's always nice to see Tod shooting his crossbow at stuff =)

[@Raptor14v]

I think its important for everyone to remember that while arrows technically have bladed edges, they are very likely not what was implied when "edged tools" were mentioned.

[@gerardhart9052]

I worked with insulation for many years and a common way of making some materials tougher was to get the bitumen to its boiling point for some time to make it harder then apply a very thin coat to the surface and while it was still hot apply a cloth, roll the cloth into the bitumen then when it was smooth allow it to cool before applying a second thicker coat of bitumen. I guess the same could be done with leather. We also used asphalt which is bitumen mixed with clay and this was even harder, like a cross between rubber and glass.

[@gfhjkfghj4208]

That is actually composite armor. The arrow can split wood, but it has to crack the glass bits and bend / push the iron out of the way. That uses up a good portion of the energy. It increases friction by a lot, especially as the elastic leather doesn't split like wood and gets dragged into the hole by the arrow together with the hard particles. Would be interesting to compare the arrows under a microscope to see if the glass and iron bits scratch them up much more than the wood.

[@GamingOnABout]

something interesting to note, when you shoot an arrow/bolt it looses momentum as it arcs up but regains a little bit of momentum as it falls and is pulled down by gravity. There's a dead spot in every arcing arrow/bolt where it has a lot less penetration halfway through it's maximum distance.

[@joshuadelisle]

Heres an interesting test, its not historical but apparently kitchen tiles can be used to create sacrificial one time bullet proof armour. I would love to see a bolt against that. Cheers J

[@nobodyisbest]

As for the gambeson: have glued gambeson on the outside for rapid deceleration and the non-glued gambeson on the inside for the increased stickiness / grabbyness.