Knights Were Filthy Rich

[@Jinseual]

A stealth Jet would cost billions of dollars. If a full suit of armor and the horse would cost to an equivalent of 3.5 million dollars then it would be more equal to a tank or an apc. Tanks cost from 3.5 to 8 million dollars. It's quite the coincidence because knights were basically the tanks of the medieval battlefield in it's role and tactical/strategic disposition.

[@realtissaye]

Jinseual What??? Tanks are that cheap? I thought the 120mm gun alone on the Abrams would have costed a couple million dollars.

[@Jinseual]

Cheap? They're millions of dollars! Of course when you think of military equipment it's easy to think about how the government likes to throw money away willy nilly but if the gun alone would cost a couple million dollars they would definitely reconsider their purchase.

[@WordBearer86]

Don't forget the cost of maintenance and upkeep, fueling, training the crewmen and all their expenses as well. As to the 'government likes to throw away money willy nilly'; just remember that's the money you pay in taxes, all those tens of thousands of millions of trillions of dollars in cash...thrown away 'willy nilly'. Cheers.

[@rylee1991]

the Abrams is only about 6.2mil and my bet is that 4-5mil of that goes to electronics, the rest of the tank isn't much more complicated than a car but the targeting computer is pretty amazing. the electronics in aircraft are even more complicated and therefore expensive, older jets like the F16 goes for 14.6mil, newer ones like the F18 super hornet goes for 70.5mil and stealth jets like the F35 cost 94.6mil (and up depending on the variant) and the f22 costs 150mil. lastly, the B2 bomber is probably the most expensive aircraft ever made it has a unit cost of 737mil but the project to design and build them cost 44.75bil and only produced 21 of them meaning it cost about 2.1bil per aircraft.

[@Quickshot0]

While I'm not entirely sure it's all in the electronics and it might also be engineering difficulties. A kind of good enough T-72 tank can be built for 1-2 million dollars. And once one realizes that, the price range even more seems like the knights case. With a bare basic one being pretty down there with 1-2 mil and the all the bells and whistles one around 6-7 million. It's almost like the knights armor cost was 'merely' multiplied by two.

[@SexDrugsFinance]

I love economic costs of war. Please publish more videos on the subject.

[@metatronyt]

I will soon! It's turning into a series

[@cloudvii166]

nice its great research material for a dnd game and novel im writing

[@cloudvii166]

nice its great research material for a dnd game and novel im writing

[@cloudvii166]

nice its great research material for a dnd game and novel im writing

[@wattlebough]

SexDrugsFinance You could be interested in the Arab conquest of the Sassanid Persians then. The entire economy of the Rashidun Caliphate was derived from spoils of war and the following Jizya tribute exacted out of the enormous wealth of the Persians between 633AD to 641AD. The History of Al-Tabari (d. 923AD) could enable an economist to estimate the scale, as it catalogues many of the items taken by quantity and value in Dirhams. I’m sure an extrapolation could be made.

[@stephenrego6065]

Soo, the clinging and clanging sounds when Warden moves is not his armor, its his money bags shuffling around.

[@sir.deusvult1047]

So That Is What Is In Vortiger's Fanny Packs

[@fork9875]

OOOOH FOR HONOR PLAYERRRRRR i feel your pain im so sorry you play that game

[@stealthboy5767]

For honor succks

[@ZACCEX]

@@sir.deusvult1047 the zan man

[@somebodysomewhere5571]

Nah it’s awesome

[@Akm72]

$0.5 to 3.5m? That puts them in the same price range as modern APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) these days.

[@Angmir]

Most advanced technologicaly today modern Tank - T-14 Armata costs 3.7 millon $. It is just that Western crap is overpriced. On the cost of late medieval armour however - dont forget that the Armour is just a fraction of full expance that Knights gear cost. In 16-17 century sources Polish Winged Hussars say that cost of a trained warhorse was few times higher than the rest of the gear combined. And single Hussar needed several of them as they tended to die after every mayor battle. And a single one would be often worth more than a whole village. Ofc that were not medieval times exacly, and Polish warhorses at that time were considered best trained in europe - but I belive that even in medieval Western Europe trained Warhorses costed more than an suit of armour. That I say would push the cost of full gear of a Medieval Knight closer to 5-8 mln $. And then - most Knights were obligated to field small units of squires, man-at-arms, and support cavalry along with them. From 2 to 12 people each.

[@Tearakan]

Akm72 makes sense.

[@akatsukami9578]

Well, they were _medieval_ armored personnel carriers :)

[@Jinseual]

I wouldn't say the Western Tanks are "overpriced" or "crap" The battle tested Western tanks performed admirable well on the battlefield and are used a lot more often than the newest Soviet Tanks like the Armata and T90 tanks. Also keep in mind that the American and British tanks which were from the 80s preformed excellently against T72s which was the best tank just a few years before the creation of the Abrams and Challenger tanks. The Soviet tank of the 80s was the T80 tank which preformed very poorly but that could be attributed to poor use after the lack of training after the collapse of the USSR. If at all the Western tanks are anything but crap.

[@Akm72]

+Akatsukami, So in NATO parlance they would probably be called APC(F) for Armoured Personnel Carrier (Foot). :)

[@benjaminolson7206]

Two issues: 1) Knighthood was always an elite activity, but became increasingly aristocratic in terms of actually having the "title" of knight in the late middle ages as the ability to grant the title became completely claimed by monarchs and it was increasingly expected that only nobles should be permitted to be made knights. In the high middle ages the term and, as they gradually came about, the trappings of knighthood were applied more broadly to heavily armored cavalry, including many of more middling origins. While we can debate actual wealth, late medieval knights are, by definition, aristocrats, whereas early knights were not, and so diversity in income almost certainly was higher at the beginning than at the end. 2) Trying to compare wealth between radically different ages is deeply problematic for several reasons. Firstly because the cost of things radically fluctuates in comparison to each other so money between periods is fairly meaningless. For example, the cost of food was much higher in medieval Europe than in modern Europe, but buying it in a tavern would run you comparatively a lot more today because labor costs and business overhead are radically different. The best one can do is to look for evidence of what a particular amount of money could have bought in terms of a variety of different goods and services and to look at evidence of what incomes were.

[@captainahab1533]

I know I'm kinda late to the game, but interestingly all the way into the 13th century, there were unfree knights. One prominent example would be the German knight and poet Hartmann von Aue.

[@radicalraccoon]

So what you're saying is that some of the armour prices in Runescape are actually somewhat accurate? Lol

[@metatronyt]

Ahah possibly xD

[@OrderRealm]

The GE is were peasants become men of status.

[@soulplay4755]

WTS Addy chest 150k, will throw in free nobility

[@dawsonoo7]

Hey there new guy! Follow me for some nice free loot... don't be afraid, I am friendly.

[@robinderoos1166]

did the prices skyrocket? damn i should login again, been 10 years but i still got full rune and 650k in bank

[@metayerman]

Thank you for taking the time to educate us, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.

[@jonathanmikesell7006]

Also English nobles could pay scutage, or shield tax, for the government to hire troops rather than serve themselves. So part of the reason for their troop composition may be that rich knights prefer others to go abroad, fight, and possibly get sick and/or die in their place, if possible.

[@VietnamWarShorts]

+Jonathan Mikesell but sadly, a musket can easily punch through plate armor like butter

[@CountArtha]

If you are a knight, then almost by definition you are going to be the one getting hired. The difference between a knight and a lord is that lords had political as well as military responsibilities. A knight was really just a soldier - a highly trained, professional, EXTREMELY well equipped soldier.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@CountArtha By the 15th century knighthood was a social class, a lesser, non-titled nobility, rather than a military caste, especially in England. Most knights would have been professional agrarian landlords, some of whom might have any interest in warfare, others not. And a most of the soldiers hired were neither knights nor men-at-arms, they were essentially mercenaries fighting for pay and for the opportunity to loot. The men-at-arms were mostly just *more expensive* mercenaries from a slightly higher social class; some were knights, many were not. But the biggest difference with the French feudal system was that in England there was no subinfeudation - _every_ landholder from the highest noble to the lowest landowning farmer held his lands directly from the crown; the nobles had peasants and tenant farmers working their estates, but they had no landowning feudal vassals like knights or lower-ranked nobles. By contrast, in France the knights and lower nobles didn't owe feudal service to the king, they owed it to a higher noble who owed it to the king (possibly with another step or two in between), so the king didn't call up thousands of soldiers, he called up a few dozen nobles who called up their vassals who in turn called up their own vassals if they had any. That meant the king had almost zero flexibility in terms of the kind of army he could take to war. The English kings could spend their money on whatever sort of troops they wanted to employ, although of course limited by the number of potential recruits available on the market.

[@deivytrajan]

Who needs money when you have a lot of pasta and pizza

[@auriel6699]

when you have to fight to defend your pizza and pasta! NOONE can take my pizza and pasta!

[@deivytrajan]

It's unwritten Italian codex

[@metatronyt]

You never have enough pasta, hence you need more money to get more pasta

[@Psycorde]

Simple macaroni economics, really.

[@Ed_man_talking9]

hey Metatron, how much in pasta noodles do you think a full tailored set of plate armor would cost?

[@Mtonazzi]

Wheren't several knights indebted in order to keep up with the costs of both war-equipment and living a life "worth of their status"? Apparently, during the rule of Phillip IV of France the lombard money lendershad to buy their right to live and work at France at least twice as a way to liquify the noble debts against them. And Charles of Valois died with quite the debts towards the Tolomei family (again, lombard money lenders), because he lived as a king (though he never got to be one himself).

[@jeanlannes4396]

The knight's net worth may be astronomical compared to a peasant but the major assets owned were a part of the vocation of landed nobility. Being a knight comes with the obligation of owning the armour, the war horse, pack horse, another horse for riding, the grooms and valets. Maybe the upkeep of a castle too! They were definitely better off than the peasants in lifestyle but their expenditures could outstrip their incomes.

[@esmeraldagreen1992]

Matias Tonazzi Hence the need to follow their lieges to war or even doing stints as mercenaries, all those things provided money in the form of booty and war prizes, it was also common in a battle to seize important opponents and to demand money for their release from their king or their families.

[@esmeraldagreen1992]

Wealth back then wasn't based on money as we understand it today, but rather on the amount of land one owned ( hence the term real estate where the word estate means wealth) . The value of money wasn't based on and abstract concept like today, but on the value and weight of the material it was made of, so an ounce of gold would be more valuable of an ounce of copper.

[@jaymc4779]

My god! If one suit of armor is in the million dollar range, then imagine the astronomical costs of battle back then! They must have blown through fortunes upon fortunes of funds! Seems like a legit reason to avoid war in my opinion.

[@ericgrajeda9916]

Jay Mc america spends 20% of its tax dollars on military spending I wonder how that compares to medieval nations and Rome

[@Nodapper]

How much do you reckon modern equipment costs?

[@lourencoalmada1305]

Eric Grajeda The US spends 2% of its GDP on the armed forces...

[@edi9892]

Jay Mc In WWII they sunk in one single day that many ships that the iron was equivalent to everything they ever mined until 1500! Also think that only few forges could produce breastplates or longswords at their time due to the requirement of heating a large object homogeneously and then think of tanks and ships of WWII... Or look what innovations were made during the world wars and compare it with everything made in the 500 years before. It seems nothing motivates more research and spending than having the desire to kill thy neighbour...

[@lourencoalmada1305]

Jay Mc A modern M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank costs $9M a unit, a single-use Javelin AT missile costs $150,000, and the cost of equipping a soldiers of the US army is about $17.500. War is expensive. Unfortunately, the cost of war isn't enough to keep them from happening.

[@MegaLars10]

Metatron you have to keep in mind that a man at arms was a fully armored mounted unit, so a knight on the battlefield would be a man at arms but a longbowman with armor is just an armored longbowman

[@metatronyt]

Well, I am talking specifically about the English here, so English knights and men at arms fought dismounted during both the war of the roses and I believe at Agicourt too. So again, an English Archer in full armour would be very similar to a man at arm in combat and they were trained on how to use sword and buckler for instance.

[@Riceball01]

Metatron From what Matt Easton says, there's no difference between a man at arms and a knight. If iirc, all knights were men at arms but not all men at arms were knights.

[@lpapay1165]

Knight is much more than guy in armour. After all knight needed to be formally knighted by sovereign, while men-at-arms could be mercenaries for all we know. Also think in Agincourt both sides fought unmounted - which was mighty peculiar for the French, but they knew at that point that horses would be shot from under them. Thing is their armour was made for horse combat, while English at that point had very distinct armour designed primarily to fight on foot - See dr Capwell and Knyght Errant for the exact differences.

[@neutralfellow9736]

But the issue is that the price range you mention is only for buying new armor, this overlooks the vast amount of second hand armor that constantly piled up in circulation over time...and which price would be far, far cheaper. Hell, we have sources depicting and describing ordinary citizen militias in plate armor by the late 15th century.

[@extrastuff9463]

I do think that's a different thing though, here his context is a knight purchasing a suit of armour from an expert armourer made to high standards. Passed down pieces may need a lot of adjusting or not work at all for someone of a different body shape, a lot of pieces that need to be just right or they are uncomfortable/restrict movement and so on. Depending on the style of plate armour and how its joints are configured things may be easier or more complex to adjust. The remark Tobias Capwell (I think it was him) made during something still makes me laugh at times: "Once you order your suit of armour you'd better not decide to get fat." Or something to that extent at least, a well working suit of late medieval plate armour needs to be properly tailored to work to the body of the user. But I suppose there's definitely something like standard issue/lower standards plate armour out there, and I also wonder if those militias you're mentioning are in a full suit of plate armour or plate for the easier parts and mail on the rest? Things like mail are a bit more flexible and can I suppose if you have to be adjusted by removing parts, adding more or even reusing segments of a scrapped one to repair something else with a few new rings.

[@AstralS7orm]

Typically the misfitting pieces were sold as spoils. There's always a buyer and a smith willing to fix things like this up. Similar with hand weapons, especially ones made of metal. So unsurprisingly while prices of second hand armor were still very high, they were approachable by even less wealthy nobility. Not so much the horses and staff to handle and train them. That was always very expensive. There were usually rules to prevent infighting over spoils. (sometimes ignored)

[@ernstschloss8794]

"Hell, we have sources depicting and describing ordinary citizen militias in plate armor by the late 15th century." Late 15th Century is pretty much Renaissance already. And those citizen militias in places like Italy or Flanders came from (precisely) extremely wealthy merchant classes, probably as wealthy or even ritcher than the nobility than they eventually replaced ( at least, middle-tier, feudal, nobility. Not talking about Kings or Arch-Count/Dukes). So they could afford that gear for themselves.

[@timburton6774]

There are scenes under the battle scenes on the Bayeux tapestry of a man pulling a suit of mail off another man, presumably dead. So looting and resizing of armor would if been a huge side business. Hey buddy, used armor, one owner, polished like new $250,000.

[@Alex-tn7pv]

3:05 you sell yourself short, good sir. You're an amazing historian and educator!

[@faenrir11]

well, the thing about knights and wealth, it's always difficult to translate to modern money. The income disparity used to be much, much more vast than today. So it might be the case that the figures Capwell provides are there to provide a reference to that, while in reality it was more the case that the armor perhaps could have cost the 30k$, it's just that very few people had that kind of money and lived for let's say a dollar a day or less. In other words, they had much less money than a modern average person. So of course that doesn't invalidate the 500k-3.5 million figure, but I think this is also a valid perspective. Modern man pays bills, can afford luxury items even if they are relatively low income household; in medieval times, people were poorer. You can see that in statistics, in how poverty has been decreasing in modernity. Relative income differences exist but being poor nowadays is still richer than in the past. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not that they knights were as rich as modern capitalists, but because the common folk had so little wealth, they could buy a lot of stuff. In the end it's of course just about where you put the emphasis on.

[@FranzPerez21]

This is exactly it. What is the conversion method being used here? Is it based on translating median income to today's dollars? The price of rent? The price of a meal? None of these things really get you the full story because the wealth disparity was so much wider back then compared to now. There is a story of a chariot racer in classical times becoming a "trillionaire" from good bets, but their actual buying power would still be dwarfed by a modern multi-millionaires.

[@sayanorasonic]

Yeah, its very complex because our economy works very different than in the middle ages

[@dynamicworlds1]

I'd like to add 2 things: 1-Most knights didn't have castles and couldn't afford them. Most knights just has a manor house and the surrounding farmland. They would absolutely not be wearing the best kit off of just that. 2-Income disparity is a lot larger today than most people realize. The top 8 people have more wealth than the bottom half of the world combined dispite a much higher population today. Which is worse kinda depends on how you compare wealth. Given the way the economy worked, I think it's generally better to think about how many skilled manhours went into making a set or armor. If anyone has good numbers on that, please share and your source if you can.

[@FranzPerez21]

DynamicWorlds the difference between the top 8 and rest might be larger now, i don't know for sure, but it's definitely possible. The differences between "lower class" and "middle class" and between "middle class" and "upper class" were much much larger back then then compared to now though. There was so little class mobility back then, and moving between the classes wasn't just an economic problem, but a legal one. If you were a tenant to a noble, you couldn't just learn a trade or become a merchant to increase your status and wealth, you would need the permission of your lord (or knight) to do so. Being "rich" back then meant that you controlled the lives and livelihoods of those in your employ, and even the most humble estates would control dozens of lives. With even mediocre management, that means a lot of wealth gets amassed for the person on top.

[@purpleanex]

Laura E, the videos stupid, a child's view of economy. If a knight had to hand the £500,000 in cash to the blacksmith for a suit of armour, then blacksmiths would've quickly been the richest people in the world, and as the richest people would've taken over.... this clearly didn't happen...

[@dragontdc]

Arcing or plunging fire was used as suppressive fire. In seiges, many of the people not actually manning the walls would be lightly armored if at all. It would disrupt operations and serve as a sort of suppressive fire which, like modern automatic weapons used for the same purpose), would only kill someone by blind luck. Nevertheless, nobody really wants to cross the courtyard to bring water or more arrows to the people on the wall when it's raining arrows. It could also be used as suppressive fire in the field and was effective at longer ranges than direct fire. It could reach enemies and equipment (such as horses or the draft animals of the baggage train) to the rear (as in not a part) of a shield wall. As you said, armor was expensive. Horse armor was probably not in the budget for most minor nobility such as knights or baronets. You don't even have to kill the horse. A severe enough wound would make the mount unfit for service. The exercise of "Shooting at the Clout" was training for this kind of fire. A target of concentric rings was marked out in a field with a small pole at the center not unlike the flag on a golf hole (but without the flag). The archers would then practice arching their fire into the center and if the "clout" was struck that archer won the round. I spent many a fine day as a Lieutenant in the Royal Meridian Yeomanry (SCA) teaching combat archery to our Baron's small company of archers back in the 1980s/90s. (By the way, point-blank archery is deadly, and trees make excellent makeshift shields to confound a foot soldier as you dodge around it filling him with arrows.)

[@casonastudios1228]

You should also take in consideration that imho there are Accounts of Squires refusing to become a Knight, because of the Costs this would be connected with.

[@w0t3rdog]

Regarding indirect arrowfiring... in the swedish document known as "Erikskrönikan" (approx translation: The Erik chronicle, mind you the original does not survive, but rather copies made in the 1300-1400, and thus some details may have been altered, to match the evoluton of language) it is written that during a certain battle, arrows fell like grain cast from the farmers hand. Dating of the document is disputed, and some of the earlier events depicted is probably hearsay rather than witness accounts. But it does suggest that indirect arrowfire were a familiar concept in 1300 scandinavia.

[@theyeeboi1845]

I'm trying to recommend your content to my history teacher

[@theyeeboi1845]

Btw Can u do a debunking video on a video called roman military strategy by naked science?

[@myssledissle]

Pfft. If you have an American teacher good luck. 70% read off of scripts with no personality. I had a science teacher who did that and worse. The whole class just went with whatever she said, and I brought up points debunking her experiments we would do if they didnt make sense or were pointless. I got in trouble once for telling the class what the answer was to a question we were studying. Saved the whole class 3 days of learning it. But good luck.

[@theyeeboi1845]

Catsaretheworst true = /

[@parthiancapitalist2733]

Teacher: but he's racist and sexist. REEEEEE

[@iateyursandwiches]

@@parthiancapitalist2733 I don't think anyone will call metatron racist or sexist. Quit being such an alt right drama queen.

[@DadBodFit]

I love your content. It's wholesome, logical, factual, and well spoken. I look forward to diving into all the past content from over the years!

[@timewave02012]

Saying that quality reproduction armor costs tens of thousands of dollars is a little misleading. For hundreds of dollars, I can buy the modern equivalent-armor that stops rifle bullets designed to penetrate armor. See also vacuum tubes being orders of magnitude more expensive than transistors, core memory vs. DRAM, building a replica of the Great Pyramid likely costing more than the Burj Khalifa, etc. I'm not saying armor was cheap in the 15th century, just that modern prices aren't a good starting point for estimates of cost when originally introduced.

[@brodaviing6617]

timewave02012 you can also make body armor that protects excellent against 9mm and various other calibres yourself for only 30 bucks. Won't protect you from 5,56 though but if you're in Europe criminals will most likely use 9mm or 7,65mm pistol ammo anyway. Not sure if it can block a 7,62x39mm round (AK47 shoots that shit) but if you want to test it go to germany/england/France, they have a terrorist every now and then :)

[@tomtunafish8957]

timewave02012 ... I agree. I would think a good starting point to estimating armor cost would be to determine the value at the time of the raw materials needed and how long it would take a smith to make the armor. Assume the armorer would be paid as a highly skilled craftsman and do the math.

[@VioletEverlasting]

@@tomtunafish8957 it will take longer and be much more expensive because of the lack of todays technology, transportation of metal, quality of the metal and skilled craftsmen were always in high demand which means they will be making armor for many people and it takes time to first come up with a design that the customer wants, measuring the body, making the pieces and fitting them and if they dont fit you have to reshape them and fit them again which takes time, first for the customer to come and request an armor, getting notified to come and try the armor on and if it doesnt then it needs to be resized and so on...

[@LeetMasterAce]

Arrow Shower actually makes sense as a tactic to mirror the angle of firing from atop fortifications or higher ground at long range to kill men-at-arms en masse. Not every tactic has to be meant for countering knights.

[@syncmonism]

I guess the long-bow was what we would call a "disruptive technology"

[@PhelippeMitsu98]

I think crossbow was more disruptive You lose a archer; you lose 8 years of expertise and knowledge You lose a crossbowman you will not have much harder time replacing him

[@artinaam]

I'm sorry, Metatron, but I cannot agree with you at many points. First of all there were quite a lot of knights who had financial problems and were not particularily affluent (especially at the end of Middle Ages). In some parts of Europe (Silesia for example) bands of pauperised knights organised themselves into gangs of brigands (so-called Raubritter). 90% of knights were owners of just one or two villages and served as retainers of wealthier aristocrats. The prices of armour also weren't so astronomical. An armorial register from 1405 tells us that the citizens of Liegnitz could afford whole suits of armour and lots of various weapons. A few wealthy burghers even had several suits of full plate. We also have various documents from Bohemia, Poland and Holy Roman Empire, showing that pieces of armour and weapons were quide affordable (of course of mediocre quality - state-of-the-art, decorated pieces cost a fortune). To give a few examples: swords cost on average between 24 to 40 groschen, a chainmail shirt - 200 groschen, similar price was paid for a bascinet. To compare - 40 groschen was a price paid for a cow at that time (prices from Cracow in the first half of 15th century). Another example is the price of royal (!) armour from England, noted in documents from 1316 - it cost 20 pounds - quite a lot (considering the value of pound at that time), but not astronomically high. Kind regards from a fellow reenactor from Poland :)

[@DrelvanianGuardOffic]

Battle of Agincourt in a nutshell. British: "We can win! God is with us!" French: "We can win! God is with us!" God: "eh..." *flips a coin* French: "Wait.. let's leave the Crossbowmen. I doubt we'll need them.."

[@josiahthenerd3072]

rofl

[@chroma6947]

Atheism fuel

[@trevorslinkard31]

A full kitted knight with horse and all is like buying a Cold War era tank. Still pretty awesome.

[@GC032]

The title is fantastic haha

[@metatronyt]

I have to agree

[@myssledissle]

I like how the title and first words are the same.

[@HipsterBot2000]

Awww man i thought i was subscribed to this channel.. i was wondering why i haven't seen any videos for a while lol... great channel im being honest here youre my number 2 favorite... after tv filthy frank. Love yaaaaaaaa

[@lourencoalmada1305]

About your archery "rant": look at the Battle of Aljubarrota. The Portuguese used English tactics against the Spanish and positioned the archers AHEAD of their forces, on each side of the path the Spanish would have to take to reach the Portuguese knights. This supports your theory, since if the archers used the arrow rain they would be better positioned behind the main force. The position the archers took is also very advantageous for directly firing arrows at the sides of the attacking force.

[@independentomega2701]

I have a counter assertion regarding the cost of the armor. Perhaps due to the relatively low number of specialists (i.e. armorers) that exist in the modern day, that drives the cost higher than it would have been back in the day. For example, you could buy some replica Lorica Segmentata today for a substantial figure but the Legions were outfitted with thousands of sets of these. When being an armorer was a standard profession instead of just a niche for the eccentric and historical, that would surely drive cost down. The only cost that would increase would be the gathering / mining and transportation operations. The primary cost of the primary work, the crafting, would be much lower per man hour of labor. Thoughts?

[@7lllll]

imagine how differently modern militaries would work if every soldier had to buy their own equipment

[@rogerbuss6069]

As for your point about archers not shooting at a high angle for maximum diatance makes ALOT of sence......but if you watch MOST of the English Longbow shooting KZbiners always are shooting the bows as high as they can, and straining as hard as they can to shoot as high an angle as they possibly can. I can see no way they can even AIM by shooting "thusly". Its just taking "slop" shots and HOPING they hit SOMETHING! (other that the ground, that is!!) What you said about shooting short range makes sense and it is supported by the fact they used up to 10 inch feathers on their arrows to get the fastest stabilization they could so they could hit the "target" at "point blank" range! You are a wealth of knowledge as always sir!

[@krispalermo8133]

D&D3e feat" point blank shot," when making a range attack within 30ft/ 9m, the range weapon gains a +1 to hit and +1 damage bonus. " sep they never mention is it due to dex for a closer target or due to the projectile still having a high release energy ?" I know, I know leave that up to the DM story teller running the game. Dex to touch the given target opponent. Str to impale through the armor.

[@quen_anito]

OMFG! The ad I got for this video is a two and a half hour long computer game review video... WTF?!

[@metatronyt]

lol I hope you could skip it xD

[@quen_anito]

Don't worry, I skipped it. No problem there, but the fact that the ad was more than 12 times the length of the video you posted is just ridiculous. Great video by the way.

[@metatronyt]

Indeed that's funny :) thanks it's going to be a series

[@perfectibility999]

That would be like if you were watching a half hour program on TV and about half way through there was a commercial break that lasted for six hours.

[@myssledissle]

I watched a 5 second long video and got a 30 second ad. Unskippable. KZbin please.

[@Sargonarhes]

Considering most knights were given domains they were sort of a lesser noble, this means they too collected taxes and gave a share to the king. And now we know why the Norse raided and used a mix of different armors. Yes, they had their own styles. But they did make use of whatever they could get a hold of, kill a man at arms and take his chainmail. Of course you'd have to fix it first before use.

[@francavable]

While $3 Million is a lot of money, it's not like there were a ton of knights running around. Most armies of the Medieval period numbered in the low thousands. A really big invasion force, like at Hastings in 1066 was certainly under 25,000 total men and most likely under 10,000. 10,000 Norman and French soldiers (Duke William actually hired a lot of men from other parts of France, he didn't have enough men, himself) defeated the English army and then subdued the whole country. Best guess says less than 1,000 of those men were knights. When the Normans conquered Sicily, they had fewer than 100 knights and about 1,000 other troops. It is best to think of knights as being like tanks. Even a country as large and wealthy as the USA only has a few thousand tanks at any given time. Armies were very small because they were very expensive! Knights and professional Men-at-Arms trained for years to be proficient and war ready. Equipment was very expensive and hard to make. Feeding a large army was very, very hard. Only after the decline of armored combat by the mid-17th century do you really see a major increase in the size of armies. Why? Because they were now much cheaper to equip!

[@ernstschloss8794]

"Why? Because they were now much cheaper to equip!" Not only that, the most important factor was population boom, and then again the military revolution periodic, compulsory conscription instaurated. All of that, by.products of the industrial revolution and the Modern Era.

[@georgederuiter1412]

Jean de Wavrin was an eyewitness to the battle of Azincourt and his details are very interersting to read! To the topic of "raining arrows from above": Jion de Frossart, an French chronist writes: "Then the english archers stepped one pace forward and let their arrows flie like snow- the sharp arrow heads hit men and horses and many died (R.G. Grant: Soldier, London 2007 p. 80)

[@mayalackman7581]

Just wanted to say this is my favorite video you've done in a long time. (I love all your content, this video was exceptionally good though. BTW I will have to check out that Dr. Tobias Capwell.)

[@metatronyt]

The link to that video I mentioned with him is in the video description :)

[@mayalackman7581]

Metatron thank you!

[@elcry1920]

So.... if each suit of armor cost that much why weren't blacksmiths swimming in money and have castles of their own?

[@sophiejones7727]

castles and armor were all things acquired over time though by a family. Castles could take decades to build, and suits of armor were passed from father to son (or uncle to nephew). It was quite cheap and easy to alter a suit of armor to fit a new person. If anyone used the tactic of raining arrows on the enemy, it would only have been as an intimidation tactic. Even in less protective armor, that would not really have done much damage. Seeing a hail of arrows coming at you is scary though. More likely, it was not used in medieval combat. Certainly it would never have been done by English longbowmen, as their weapons were designed for power not speed. As their firing rate was low (although better than a crossbowman) they would have needed to maximize every shot, so they probably waited until their enemy got close and shot to kill as you suggest. Archers using a shortbow like traditional Persian archers, some Roman auxiliaries, and Thracian peltists might well have used this technique though. These bows were designed with speed in mind, the idea being that if you shoot a lot of arrows really fast at the enemy some of them will hit. The same idea as that behind a modern machine gun, or frag grenade. Of course, there were situations when this was not terribly effective: such as when your enemy used a shield larger than his head. Thus while Xerxes' famous threat to Leonidas "our arrows will blot out the sun" was likely not an empty one, Leonidas was also justified in his cocky response "then we shall fight in the shade".

[@VioletEverlasting]

fun fact : the last quote is true and armor passed down can become outdated pretty fast and it wont be that easy to resize a suit of armor for a smaller of bigger person than the last wearer

[@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443]

Most castles were built in a very short time actually like a year or less

[@mwsoupy]

As far as the main point, just a imagine if the nobles had 80% of Europe's wealth, there no doubt that night could afford a 1million dollar equivalent set. The wage gap during the middle ages was so unbelievable, it's amazing that the common folk found it necessary to continue working. If you forget about the noble ones of the middle ages, that time was a dreary existence, filled with religious oppression and mass poverty.

[@KelrCrow]

So, was looting post battle a real thing then? Would your average archer, man-at-arms, etc on the winning side be able to loot the equivalent of millions of dollars worth of equipment from the dead? For example, take the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Flemish infantry forces apparently slaughtered the French knights (3,000 knights?). Could that have resulted in the equivalent of billions of dollars worth of armor, weapons, and horses for the Flemish forces?

[@Riceball01]

I can't say with absolute certainty but I'd imagine that looting was a real thing, historically speaking, looting (both the dead and captured cities) was often used as a way of supplementing your income as a soldier. I've read that for the Romans the possibility of looting after a battle was one of the reasons people joined the Legion. Even if the troops themselves didn't loot the dead then certainly the camp followers would have done so, there were probably people who followed armies specifically for the chance at looting the battlefield.

[@grayblackhelm6468]

If you came upon a set of relatively undamaged armor and weapons- would you let it be? Or would you collect it, maintain it, and use it? Or sell it for profit?

[@dreconit6156]

Gray: What type of armour? And what size is it compared to me?

[@HughMungus11]

Kelr It was never sold, instead it was hung up in some church until the French stole it back

[@KelrCrow]

I think it was the golden spurs of the French knights that were put in the church, in my example, but what about the rest of their kit? I guess that it seems like being a soldier on the winning team could take you from poor to extremely rich in one battle just from looting. I guess the hard part would be keeping the loot until the war was over and you got to go home if it's larger stuff like armor and weapons.

[@kingkungkernitz]

I attended a lecture on medieval warfare in my university more than 10 years ago. I remember the lecturer claiming that the cost of hiring a knight is equivalent to buying a yatch today. That's definitely interesting if true.

[@Artanis99]

Interesting comparison I've heard was that costs of equipping and maintaining a proper knight + men-at-arms would be in modern age comparable to building and maintaning F1 monopost. P.S.: From looking at history of many castles in Czech Republic one of the reasons knights and nobles could go bankrupt was building a castle and as such many times you can see castle being sold off after it was inherited (presumably to pay of crippling debts left by the buider).

[@pabloraulpereyra4948]

3:00 i dont sure of that prices how to be correct... Like in some battles they spend battle of agincourt have thousands of those millonaries. So i am not real sure of those numbers

[@MrZnarffy]

This covers late era knighthood. In earlier times they weren't that wealthy. Compared to a commoner, yes, but even William Marshall, who got so wealthy, had to borrow money for his first armour and tournament. His skill eventually made him rich, but many knights had to struggle to afford warhorse, armour etc. Even earlier, from say 10th-11th century, knighting after battle was way more common, and some man at arms who just had been knighted probably didn't have much.

[@caiusofglantri5513]

I think it revealing that the 12th century romances about knights, designed for a castle audience, often used money-lending language to describe combat: "He would pay him back with interest." I haven't noticed this language in earlier heroic literature. No doubt it reflects some of the economic needs of the time. With the accumulated fortune that William Marshal had won on the tourney fields, he was able to outbid all the wealthiest bachelors of the kingdom (except Prince John) when Richard was selling off positions to fund his crusade. Of course, the History of William Marshal does not describe his marriage to Isabel de Clare in these terms!

[@MrZnarffy]

@@caiusofglantri5513 Well, interest was something forbidden for all but jews at that time. And I referred to William Marshall EXACTLY because even he started without pretty much anything. He then made money through skill and ruthlessness and ended up as one of the richest people at that time. But knights then was not a bought title, it was either connections, skill and/or luck. And raiding and small wars also paid well. Prisoners of war pretty much was a nobility only thing, and used to make money. The rest you just killed on the spot and looted,.

[@Slayer119988]

This video is above and beyond marvelous. Something many cannot grasp when they search up [insert century]’s armor, is that they often find knight’s armor, AKA that of an elite noble unit. They were not the standard troop on the battlefield. Knight does not equal “warrior” in general. Most did not have such shining, complex fitments of protection. This hammers it home perfectly.

[@rolandropnack4370]

From what I know you make the wrong assumption that the Standard knight had state of the art equipment and an estate to finance it. Knighthood was an ordination into the ranks of Warriors, it had nothing to do with nobility per se, although it was common for nobles to be knight, there were a lot of knights that were not even free men. the Ministerialen were court serfs in the german empire for example. Further more, in Northern Germany only the eldest son inherited the estate. this held the Family wealth together, but produced a Lot of second and third sons without fortunes. The "poor knight" ist proverbial in Germany. You can assume sword and spurs were the only Knightly Equipment of such knights, because those were given to them at the Knighting ceremony. Also most "burghs" or knights seats of the lower gentry were Just defenceless Farm steads. It was the Status of the owner, not the walls, what made a castle.In the Northern territories of the German Empire, at least, knights were definitely not automatically rich.

[@grayblackhelm6468]

Roland Röpnack From my studies, if a knight is not rich, he soon will be.

[@CountArtha]

Depends on how top-down the particular permutation of feudalism is in that region, at that time, under that ruler (if there even IS a ruler above you, which in some parts of Germany and Italy there won't be). Some knights were basically just gentleman farmers or hired thugs who got a little piece of land to support their family as a reward; others were "robber barons" who greatly enriched themselves by collecting tolls, taxes, and other forms of tribute from the people under their "protection." So depending on the time and place, knighthood was either a fig leaf for tyranny, a dangerous servile lifestyle, or a public trust.

[@Locahaskatexu]

Not just Dr. Capwell. There's a quite good documentary called Going Medieval with Mike Loades about. In it he talks about Archers and how they probably shot their arrows along a flat trajectory. He also shows that the impact of a warbow at short range can equal the impact force of a .357 magnum or even a .44 magnum (at about 25 yards I believe, which for a warbow, with it's projected range of several hundred yards, is close to point blank) I can wholeheartedly recommend the documentary, or any works with Mike Loades in them. The guy is quite passionate about Medieval history, actual medieval history at that.

[@ivan55599]

7:35 "Shooting in the air, I don't think it was done" - so pretty much every horse was at that time full plate armored?

[@DJYC21215]

Horse skin isn't exactly easy to pierce. So even without plate armor, trying to shoot one at a distance would result in many wasted arrows.

[@Timbo6669]

Im starting a drinking game! Every time Metatron touches his hair, take a shot!! Love ya vids man!

[@dragonspear4055]

Video Idea: Comparison of bow tactics of medieval Japan and Europe

[@constpegasus]

Very good topic. Keep them coming.

[@snowman3066]

Was old armor ever repurposed or reshaped, or was it just thrown out?

[@EliteHero17]

Considering the value of armor, I think it would probably be sold or kept for a family collection. One of the main perks of being a knight is your heirs are usually guaranteed a job and fortune, so having a family collection to pass down seems possible to me. When armors were eventually scraped due to being outdated or really heavily damaged, I think they'd definitely be melted down and the metal reused, since it still has some value as material for another set.

[@NikovK]

Plate armor is sheet metal. It is not difficult to refit to another user. It does become obsolete, however, as armor evolved significantly over the centuries.

[@ernstschloss8794]

Mostly Kept. If any of you ever read "Don Quixote" he's actually using his great-grand father's armour. That was actually common back then, although you tended to modify it along with prevalent costumes of the day ( assuming you could afford it)

[@philliplamoureux9489]

Excellent! Direct fire makes the most sense because the need to have the punch for penetrating power!

[@ME-hm7zm]

I think you underrate the concepts of debt and payments over time.

[@strider_hiryu850]

Great video as always mate.

[@GuntherRommel]

You forgot the links in the description.

[@metatronyt]

They are there now oh ye

[@emilspegel9677]

To start the belief of firing into the air is in my humble oppinion probably an effect of laymen interpreting bowmen angling their shots for long range ballistic arcing, seeing the bow being raised to a degree to produce an arcing movement in the arrow to increase range. In terms of the battlefield archery there can perhaps be pararels drawn with volley fire of later musketry. Since you want to produce a shock effect with your bowmen you may start with relatively cohesive volleys as the enemy enters the range of fire of the bow. As mentioned above these volleys will be fire sliglty arcing and will thus strike the target sliglty angled but retaining as much kinetic energy as possible at that range. As the enemy closes, cohesion of the volleys will start to decreese as sight differences in the individual stamina, technique and speed of the bowmen start to show. Some may tire and loose drawstrenght ever so slighlty while others fumble with the bow a little from stress. During this time the enemy will have come close enough for precise personal aiming and the archery deteriorates into a mass of individual shooting to score as many hits as possible. Each bowman will at this range fire targeted shots in a flat trajectory, producing a continious hail of arrows. This same effect is noticed with musketeers, where historically the shooting would devolve into a mass of firing men after a given set of volleys. Number of volleys would differ depending on the morale and training of the men, but usually where considered to stand between two to four volleys before the men would start firing independently.

[@ColHoganGer90]

Knights being "filthy rich" is a gross oversimplification. Many knightly houses were ruined by their expenses for military service to their lord, losing their nobility and becoming nothing more than free and sometimes even unfree farmers. True, there were knights even richer than some counts and other members of the true nobility, but these were the exceptions. Knights (and any non-noble freeborn landholders in general) can be imagined as the middle strata of medieval society, therefore many times wealthier than the vast majority of unfree non-nobles, but still in a somewhat precarious situation, that could see you losing your status within a generation (or ofc rising up to true nobility). Also, Raf seems to be blinded by the influences of modern fiat-money or a money based economy in general. In medieval times (with a couple exceptions and in contrast to the periods following the Renaissance) resources were expensive, work was cheap. Even the highest strata of society had to constantly fear bad harvests, early winters, famines etc. that could wipe out the careful work of generations. Your grandfather founded a small but thriving settlement at an important ford in your territory, that is now heavily patronised by you, so it may grow and net you some money. Well, two or three bad winters in a row and your investment is lost. And now that damn liege of yours requests your assistance in his feud with the bishop next door. Being a knight was not about living the life, it was constant hard work to run the family business.

[@metatronyt]

By the late medieval, knighthood was in many ways synonymous with being near the top of the social hierarchy. The 'poor knight' is more of a myth than a reality and was very much the exception to the rule by the late middle ages

[@ColHoganGer90]

It's true, by the later medieval period (which encompasses different stretches of time in different areas, mind you) knights were near (!) the top of the social hierarchy in most regions of Europe - for what's that worth depends massively on the circumstances. Nonetheless, you seriously need to check your sources, if you insist on continuing to call economical hardship among them a myth. I get it, you're an Italian and in Italy the lower nobility became amazingly affluent and politically influential in this time period, but have you ever researched the status of the Polish szlachta or the origins of early-modern Imperial Knighthood? Even wikipedia has a decent summary of the process for everyone to read, but any comprehensive study on the subject in your local university library will make it even clearer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Knight "Poor knights" became an exception to the rule in many regions, because those that had lost the competition for lands, revenues and status had ceased to be nobility (although they sometimes retained the legal status) - call it survival of the fittest, if you like, but it's more like survival of the most ruthless and lucky bastard.

[@Fif0l]

@@ColHoganGer90 I am Polish, but let's be honest: Poland was a bit poor compared to France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, oh look, I ran out of medieval European countries. We were and the bottom of the list. Sorry. You can't take the situation of Polish nobility and just apply it to all of Europe.

[@loredragonofftheclock]

So I wonder if armor was so immensely expensive, how were blacksmiths not just as wealthy as these knights? He could make a single harness and be set for life by that standard! Were materials really that expensive? Did it just take literal years to make? Was it spread among many smiths? I'd love a video on blacksmiths in general!

[@icefl4re597]

Materials are more expensive, chances are the blacksmith aren't alone in the actual construction (Master armorer ____ has s guild, that guild employs several blacksmith), and yes it can take like a year to make just one set. (For comparison, Ancient Roman lorica hamata, with all their industry, actually takes 4 months to make one. Yes, just one - chainmails are passed down fathers to sons. I would think medieval armor, with less industrialization than the Romans, would take longer)

[@ricardotorrence6459]

Still they were the lowest class noble... So... How absurdly rich would be the highest ranks?

[@nemo99nemo83]

Billionaires in todays value

[@admiralackbar3615]

@@nemo99nemo83 probably richer than the richest people on earth today, well maybe the higher up nobles.

[@neilcampbell7375]

@@admiralackbar3615 The richest man ever was a roman chariot rider. Going way above what we have today

[@spencerblack8046]

I love your content man thank you

[@fathel9221]

Persian immortal vs roman legionary

[@eddy3300]

Fathel Guweda Legionary loses obviously. The sophisticated and deadly Dual wielding of swords will cut down the Romans

[@eddy3300]

BITCH

[@RocketHarry865]

get that frank miller fantasy crap out of here

[@karlhans6678]

@@eddy3300 lol

[@heyarno]

I imagine shooting burning arrows in a high arch could work in sieges, when the target is fairly concentrated. Otherwise I think the direct line of fire is the most reasonable and widely applied technique. Modern archers are fairly advanced and they still us pretty much the direct line of fire. To me this shows, that it's the most effective way to use a bow and even history didn't overthrow that concept.

[@STROBOLIGHTS]

Mmm... I think you're wrong. In the battle of Agincourt the English had an unconventional structured army not because bowmen were cheaper, but because the battle of Agincourt was not the first battle their army faced, they began with a traditionally structured army, but by the time of the battle of Agincourt all they had left was mostly bowmen (and a small force of knights). I don't think price had anything to do with it. They fought with what they had.

[@Xerrand]

This was very interesting, and my third video of yours I liked. Subbed, thank you Metatron.

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

My personal opinion is that longbowmen would have waited until the enemy was a maximum of forty metres before attempting shots, perhaps much closer. On long campaigns they would have had considerable opportunities to loot armour pieces from enemies killed or captured.

[@lpapay1165]

Going after about only filmed tests made with equipment made to resemble actual things - that is test done by RA Leeds for Mike Loades "Weapons that made Britain" - with the breastplate they used (munition grade) the 50/50 penetration distance was 15 meters. Then again archers were never deployed as "Anvil" - that was role of Men-at-arms and later pikeblock. They shoot from flank , so it is actual, realistic distance, especially considering that at the time of Agincourt we start to see field earthworks/spikes that protect "shotte". (Also French advancing of foot because they know English will kill horses first - Crecy- helped with prolonged exposure, funny thing English were known to be first to fight dismounted, which is reflected in quite distinct armour developments) We know that bodies were looted, armour battlefield finds are rare - unless you happen upon something like Visby when rapid body decomposition due summer heat lead to haste burial without looting - almost singular event. It is also important because it shows levied troops used armour outdated by almost century.

[@louisjolliet3369]

Excellent video. Thanks.

[@mwsoupy]

Do you think maybe arrows were shot at multiple different angles? If you look at a bassinet, it looks like would be very effective a deflecting arrows from the top. Looks to me like they were designed for vertical arrow fire, because that's how it was often done before the 13th CE, and English developed a bow that you can shoot horizontally and still have it pack a massive punch. It seems as though the french were indeed expecting a volley of arrows, but they received a the arrows directly in front of them. I think that was a turning point in battle tactics, both armies had felt as though they had the upper hand, which tells me that where both employing new tactics.

[@davidbriggs264]

Given the fact that Queen Elizabeth is reportedly famous for bathing once a year, whether she "needth or not", I would suspect that not only were knights filthy rich, they were also richly filthy.

[@ludicrus32]

King John of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame bathed almost daily. Queen Elizabeth would have kept clean more than once a year; she would have had the equivalent of a sponge bath fairly regularly, as people in Tudor times believed submerging oneself was bad for the humors, but they were not stupid enough to not wash their hands.

[@Gew219]

David Briggs King of Poland Władysław II Jagiełło (reigning 1386-1434) was famous for taking a hot bath three times a day. More than an average first world inhabitant today. Before the Renaissance Europeans kept very clean and public bathhouses in towns were numerous and popular. It changed with the new theories in medicine (like humour theory mentioned above) propageted during the 1500's.

[@absolutelyheretical7132]

This is a myth, please don't perpetuate it. People did wash all throughout history, all across the world. Nobody would be able to tolerate being around people who were literally rotting away with sweat and dirt...you'd become ill from that and you'd be about as popular as a pile of dung. You'd also die of dysentery every time you touched food, since you'd have never washed the literal heaps of shit from your hands for decades lol..absolute bullshit myth. People may not always have bathed in something resembling a bath but that doesn't mean they didn't wash, ever heard of a wet cloth, sponge, basin of water, one of those portable sink type things nobles used to have or a stream or a brush etc. etc.?

[@grayblackhelm6468]

Ravogard Dragovar This is one of those things that sound like absolute bullshit, But is absolutely true. But it’s strange, isn’t it? The nursery rhymes we still sing on occasion with the little ones- “ring around the rosey” comes to mind. “Ring round the rosey, Pockets full of posey...” The plagues were the first time perfumes were used on such a wide scale- even more often than today’s men and women, I’ve been told.

[@Cov1ngtonsGhOst]

Incorrect, the "they only bathed once a year" is a myth. There are no sources to back it up, and plenty of sources to go against it.

[@Sir_Perth]

My knowledge on the subject is probably no where near as good as yours, but if I think about say a Knight, given the title by a lord (let’s say a count or a duke or even another knight) and a fiefdom where the Knight could collect boatloads of taxes annually depending on the size of the land(s) given to him (I’m sure the crown would pay him for his military service on the battlefield as well) I could definitely see Knights as a whole being filthy rich lol. I could also see a Knight falling out of favor from whatever Lord he owes much of his station to or being on the wrong side of a conflict/war for him to fall into bankruptcy. Thanks for the great video!

[@michaelmyers-ry6wi]

Unfair game balance pay to win

[@josephnardone1250]

For what it's worth, from what I've read about the use of archers in warfare was that by firing the arrows over heads of the enemy or in the air was that the enemy had to raise their shield to protect themselves from the arrows which made them vulnerable to a lance or spear attack. King Harold of the Saxons was supposed to have been killed with an arrow in the eye from such an attack. This was before body armor was used for protection. As for me, if that were the case and I was the general in charge, I would've had half my archers fire into the air and as soon as shields wers raised, I would've had the remaining archers fire directly at the unprotected troops.

[@marcionphilologos5367]

Sorry, but your vision on this topic is completely wrong. In the Middle Ages there was no capitalism!!!!! This means that there was a lack of money, work was cheap (executed by pupils)and products were traded for other goods. Landowners were rich, but as you know knights were often second sons. Soldiers were payed few money, but they had the freedom to loot a conquered city. To define the price of a suit of armour for today is impossible.

[@metatronyt]

By the late medieval, knighthood was in many ways synonymous with being near the top of the social hierarchy. The 'poor knight' is more of a myth than a reality and was very much the exception to the rule by the late middle ages. ps: I didn't make that definition of price, Dr Capwell did and he knows what he is talking about. (Although we are looking only at the very top of the scale, a 3.5 million suit of armour is as funcionat as a 500k one, the only difference is gold silver and other precious embellishments).

[@marcionphilologos5367]

You are right that the late Mediëval period was influenced by the rise of mercantilism. Kings and barons became richer, got bigger armies and better armour. But it is also true that in the 13th century poor knights crossed Europe to defend Christian values.......

[@marcionphilologos5367]

Recently I studied the first crusade and came to the conclusion that because of the HAUBARK, which was not to penetrate by Turcish arrows, the crusaders won every battle.

[@grayblackhelm6468]

JWM Schonberger Then by the second Crusade the Turks for their developed their combat strategies. They advanced into Europe and took back many cities over the next decade or so.

[@marcionphilologos5367]

Because the Crusaders were overconfident they lost the battle at Hattin against Saladin. Western knights were superior to Turcish/Mameluk soldiers, but in the end was the pressure of the huge Egyptian army of Baibar too big and the crusaders were pushed out of the holy land.

[@rollingthunder1043]

Wow... $11-30,000 vs the equivalent of $1.5-3m. Production costs have gone WAY down....

[@necrogenesis1981]

Why would a rich person fight? They can afford people to fight for them.

[@dragon12234]

That's what happened later. in those days they were rich because they were paid very well to be the tanks of the battlefield

[@necrogenesis1981]

So basically the only reason they got rich is because they managed to survive as a meat shield long enough to be promoted?

[@edi9892]

Russell who has the power? The one with the crown, the one with the coin or the one with the sword? The crown struggled with the loyalty of their knights and the knights certainly didn't want the peasants they oppressed to be armed with plate, crossbow and poleaxes... Of course they had some men at arms, but they wouldn't want a militia with that much power.

[@necrogenesis1981]

Good point. I guess it's way different today than back then, on the other hand soldiers of today are issued their equipment rather than buying them.

[@edi9892]

Russell It's not just the equipment but also the training. A peasant vs a knight is like a thug with a revolver against a fully equipped navy seal. Training, moral and unit cohesion mattered a lot.

[@swirlcrop]

Your videos are just excellent. Good job. :-)

[@Williamstanway]

Great video..... As usual

[@goShinigami]

Follow-up question: Were medieval, high tier armorers also filthy rich? Or at least, pretty wealthy and belonging to the upper class? I mean sure, they have to work probably months (?) on a full set of good plate armour, buy expensive metal, pay their employees at the armory shop I'd assume some coins but at the end of the work, they are the one who sell that multi-million dollar suit of armor. Only thing that would keep the armorer from getting filthy rich after some years would be heavy taxes

[@Veringetorix]

im so happy you are still making videos, when i get the chance ill support you :3

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate :)

[@Aliraldd992]

you cannot attack with a bow at point blank or else you will get an opportunity attack from the opponents...unless you have taken the right talent

[@timwf11b]

Note from the price comparison link in my previous post. "Lance armor" (the more expensive of the two types of plate armor listed sold for 80 shillings. 80 shillings is also the cost (based on that price list) for about 27 woolen garments for "wealthy" peasants, 40 yards of cloth of the type that a yeoman would use for clothes, about 6 silver spoons, the cost to hire a man at arms for 80 days (or 80 for one day), or the cost to sign for people up for apprenticeships with the mercers guild. So yes its serious money, but its not the equivalent of millions today, or the equivalent of stealth technology in monetary terms. It really isn't the equivalent of stealth technology in military terms either. Plate armor was a relatively new and expensive technology but it was common. Every one started using it. It wasn't something that only one country really had deployed and only a few were even developing (and in low numbers all around).

[@carausiuscaesar5672]

Hey the Count of Foix had 1600 hounds for the hunt in 1391 according to Froissart! 1600 and he was only a Count!Imagine having to stoop and scoop all that dog poop!

[@lorddenithal]

The numbers agree with you. The rough estimate for occupation in the middle ages was... 90% farmers, 9% craftsmen, and 1% left over to be nobles, priests, and knights. All the wealth was funneled to the top.

[@petersmith271]

With regard to longrange archer shooting I could see it working in a few scenerios but not as you point out within the context of aiming at Knights or Men At Arms.... That said I think it would be done in several cases and situations.... 1. Siege or highground... I could imagine carpet fire of arrows in a siege situation from a city or castle where numbers were particularly disadvantageous but supplies were well maintained might be possible. 2. I think arrows or a long distance archer line might be also useful in a battlefield situation against mounted cavalry and recruited militia... Alot of large scale wars involved peasant recruiment and killing them in carpet fire of arrows was certainly feasible.... As for the cavalry whilst you might be well protected one might not say the same necessarily about your horse... Yes the knight as an armored soldier was quite formidable but the very title of knighthood was associated with a mounted cavalry. 3. The last would be archer vs archer where longer distance would obviously come into play... I don't believe the British Long Bow would achieve the acclaim it did if distance had nothing to do with it as frankly other bows were easier to train with and to make..... But the accuracy they could be used to shoot long range arrows paled in comparison.

[@jollygrapefruit786]

Getting shot in the face at point blank range by an archer while wearing full plate armor must be histories biggest oof.

[@martinvasilvski7089]

i agree about the arrows! i have seen some people shooting bows and nope no one was shooting in the air!

[@cliffedward]

Pleased you mentioned the 'shooting in the air' scenario. Surely an arrow fired this way would lose it's velocity when coming down therefore losing it's penetrating power as apposed to an arrow fired at you. I've also read and heard it was probably a myth that flaming arrows were fired. Maybe this could have been possible in Medieval times because of Greek fire, but the Native American Indians didn't have access to this. I guess the best answer is the one given by Ridley Scott when questioned about the opening scene in Gladiator when Roman Centurions are seen firing flaming arrows. When asked how he knew they used flaming arrows his answer was "How do you know they didn't?

[@deekay8286]

So Metatron, you are saying Knights were filthy rich because they were able to afford amour of prices 500k to 3m?! Problems here: 1. Even today a 'normal' Person in western Germany has to pay these prices to get a house 2. Like 'normal' persons, knights would probably have borrowed the money 3. You mixed up substantial rich with liquid rich -> Knights NEEDED to get the armour for representative reasons and of course for war, so its not like they had a choice with these expensives and could have used the money otherwise and so it was a substantial invest for further wealth 4. From my semi good knowledge I do know, that lot of knights were to poor to sustain their lifestyle of Knights (horse, amour, weapons, ...) and so they lived as mercenaries and sought for war to get loot I do not fully disagree with you, but have to relativise your points. Great channel btw, I do enjoy your videos!

[@billbadson7598]

In regards to archers and the angle at which they fired their arrows, I always try to illustrate with a thought exercise. If you and a bunch of your buds were out bow-hunting, and you saw a group of deer munching on some grass in a clearing, are you all going to arc your arrows into the sky and hope the napkin math works out and they land properly, or are you and your buds just going to fire the arrows directly at the deer?

[@ConHathy]

Basic physics disproves the raining arrows thing. It takes energy to get the arrow into the air. It simply regains that energy when it falls, and it would probably lose more because it experiences air resistance for longer. I actually have an entire video on the subject but I'm hiding this here because it's not a plug.

[@jackvernian7779]

The only reason why you might angle your bow at 45 degrees, also from a physics standpoint, is to achieve maximum range, but do not expect it to be accurate shooting at that point.

[@danielesenpai4624]

Interesting and informative as usual!

[@PANCAKEMINEZZ]

I have a question that, for whatever reason, I cannot find out even with a google search: would a knight, when granted the title of "knight" or man-at-arms, be granted a suit of armor from his lord? I am curious, both for historical curiosity and because I am currently writing up a DnD setting and I want to make it more down to earth and realistic than high fantasy. To some, this question might sound extremely simple. However, I never really got confirmation ever before. I had always assumed a knight would have to purchase his own armor, but a professor of mine (in art history, so I know he's not exactly the best source to go off of) mentioned when talking about the art of engraving armor that suits of armor were given to the lord's knights much like how our governments today give soldiers a standard issue kit of clothes and gear. I know a wealthy knight (or in the case of the video... Just a knight lol) could upgrade by having his own armor made, but would The Lord that knighted him give him a suit of armor as "standard issue" type deal? Or is this absolute nonsense?

[@aaronseet2738]

Each knight essentially owned his own panzerkampfwagen.

[@christopherellis2663]

Very interesting, I am sure to keep this in mind. Tx

[@gawaineross7607]

This is an amazing episode.

[@Delgen1951]

Question would arrow storms hit and cause the horses to go out to control and throw and trample the riders as they tried to flee the arrow storm? A 1200 pound horse that wants to run a way is hard to control or stop, especially if maddened by pain.

[@andrews.5212]

On shouting in an archway. I don't know the english but the Byzantine were doing that all the time. In the book peri toxeia there are excerpt from Byzantine "training manuals" on how to shoot while running, retraiting and how to use special light short arrows that had to be shoot hundred of meters in the distance to arras the enemy

[@dirtpoorchris]

I think "arrow rain" would be used as a jab punch. (or more like a max range poke kick) Like forces arent engaging but kinda close so the archers say "fuck it, try a random jab" or used in a spamming manner against subpar forces. Like if some villagers were attacking you you could just sorta hide behind ur volleys and suffer zero casualties.

[@mereanochheart7050]

the English longbow was capable of indirect fire out to 300+ yards and was often massed together and use to great affect - by firing "into the air" as you put it

[@brucetucker4847]

The effectiveness depended a lot on the target - at Falkirk, where the target was mostly lightly armored Scottish spearmen, the effect was horrific. The effect on unarmored horses was also very great - you might not kill most of the horses outright, but you'd certainly make them useless for riding into battle.