Simple answers to short questions.

[@xpkkingx]

Everytime I listen to your videos, I'm astounded by your depth and breadth of knowledge. You're a gifted teacher. Thank you.

[@MalcolmPL]

Breadth, not necessarily depths.

[@natebrodeur1765]

@@MalcolmPL It's all relative. I wonder what it's like to learn of this as an English speaker an ocean away from the Americas, to view it without the cultural background basic information growing up here provides. Too learn of it as you or I might learn the history and culture of Mongols or Maori or Assyrians.

[@InSanic13]

I had heard about Pre-Columbian metallurgy in general, but I didn't know that the Inuit actually had some iron tools. Your videos are always a treat.

[@pilotravis]

Those knives towards the end look cool af. Amazing design

[@rubenskiii]

The people that developed their own style of swords and daggers really made my eyes go big, you can oh so clearly see similarities in design with ancient British/Continental bronze age and early iron age swords/dirks/daggers. Facinating!

[@AncientAmericas]

Thanks for answering these questions and thanks for the recommendation!

[@MalcolmPL]

Think nothing of it.

[@trikepilot101]

I have done a bit of learning on my own since I asked the wampum question, but I was still pleased to hear your answer. Thanks!

[@Ficalos]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge! It's a joy to learn.

[@dabrooms1455]

I especially like your discussion regarding what the Haudenosaunee carried on long journeys. As someone who has works in food and the history, I have wondered about what the ones before us carried. The three most important food items for a long journey in my opinion would be: corn flour, maple sugar, and pemmican for their weights and calorie densities. Some other things that I think could sustain the people on their journeys would be dried berries, powdered or small cuts of dried meat (fish, venison, game), pumpkin or squash seeds, walnuts, hickory nuts, chestnuts, dried mushrooms (puffball, chicken of the woods, morels, chanterelles), dried vegetables (corn, beans, squash, manoomin, potatoes, carrot, turnip), dried fruits (plums, grapes, crababbles, paw paw, any dried berries), any foraged or dried green one can find. So just a few things to get your minds working. Niawenkowa sewakwekon

[@alterangel]

Never heard of Pemmican until now. I want to try some

[@MalcolmPL]

It’s kind of bland. Mostly just tastes like grease. Unless you add a lot of salt or berries.

[@kolober2045]

I'm not necessarily an expert, but I know a thing or two about bow woods and hickory is an excellent bow wood. It's highly elastic and ideal for flatbow designs (as opposed to long-bow designs). It's a great wood for beginning bowyers because it's very forgiving to flaws in workmanship.

[@aluegyatsmax9756]

It's a real shame my people in the pacific northwest here dont really ever make the traditional daggers. I hope to change that because they are truly beautiful works of art like many other art works my ancestors created.

[@MalcolmPL]

I wish you well in that endeavor. It would be good if people were still making them. Work patiently and you’ll do fine.

[@aluegyatsmax9756]

@@MalcolmPL thank you

[@graysuka]

This was a really cool feature, Thanks for making it

[@imperatorcaesardivifiliusa3805]

I'm not sure I agree with you on your gun comments.Perhaps there was little transition time for the Iroquois but in the British isles the last battle with a bow was 1688 in the battle of Mulroy. The Mary rose's (Henry the 8ths flagship) hold was found to contain hundreds of English longbows despite them having access to match lock rifles by that time. A match lock rife does have some major draw backs that a bow still might be useful. There just seems to have been a transitional time from what I've read depending on time and place. I have read that plains Indians switched to smaller bows over their longbows when they gained horses. Rather than switch to a long barreled musket on horseback.

[@jooky5]

The Comanche used it until the revolver became popular

[@MakesSens]

Very interesting, meegwetch

[@AhJodie]

I did find them interesting!

[@RuneChaosMarine]

i feel like that is video would be good to expand into seperate videos.

[@RuneChaosMarine]

tell us, what were the original lacross balls made of? wood? bone? stone? rubber imported from mexico or south america? of the Olmec creation?

[@MalcolmPL]

Wood wrapped in leather.

[@arcadegamesify]

What did people do with their time in the winter when it is dark 16 hours a day?

[@MalcolmPL]

Tell stories and work by the fire.

[@blaf55]

very nice , episode 2 when ?

[@MalcolmPL]

Given the rate at which I accumulated these questions, probably in two years.

[@WhiteThumbs]

Black powder rifles are more effective than modern handguns, just slow af.

[@iivin4233]

As far as I know, and generally, fortifications in Europe were not designed to sucker enemies into attacking. They were made to stall enemy advances. They functioned in the context of a larger armed group that could relieve the fortification once the stall tactic had given the defending faction time to assemble its army. Therefore they were made as impregnable as possible, and possibly for other reasons as well. This makes me question the idea that maze fortifications were designed to encourage an attack. Do we have evidence that this was the thinking behind mazes? Is there context that made maze strategy predominate over the stall strategy?

[@MalcolmPL]

I don't know of any period source that examines the utility. As far as I'm aware it's speculation by historians, archaeologists and interpreters. By my own thinking, If you were just trying to slow people down, then logically speaking a plain wall would be easier to construct and a better delaying tactic than the maze, thus the maze must have some special utility, which the theory in question fits quite well.

[@BoneistJ]

Did they not try to breach the walls by chopping through them with axes?

[@UrsahSolar]

Stone axes really suck at chopping wood. You'd get shot before you could get through.

[@MalcolmPL]

In addition to the time it would take to cut through, Real walls would be joined together with ropes, such that if one log was cut it would remain held in place by its neighbors.

[@SuperFunkmachine]

And go where? in to the waiting weapons of your foes! Setting a fire to the walls is the safer way to do it if you can out shoot the defenders.

[@finnsharp6138]

I have a simple question was native life better and more rewarding

[@MalcolmPL]

I believe so. And that’s generally the consensus among people that I know. There was strong and healthy community, there was individual purpose. There was good and varied work. But it’s actually a really big question.

[@BubuH-cq6km]

😎 👍🏼

[@Dglenn2185]

So…I’m not an expert, therefore this is a question coming at you in the form of a statement: it was my understanding that the bow does have advantages over the musket. Reload time and accuracy. Obviously if each party only has one shot at the target a musket has the advantage, but if they miss or there is multiple targets the bow wins. And I can’t seem to remember when rifling the barrel of a gun became common…someone help me out here.

[@MalcolmPL]

The bow shoots about twice as fast as the musket. But is not significantly more accurate. The issue is that the bow doesn’t compete in terms of damage. It takes several arrows to equate a musket ball.

[@jarlnils435]

rifled barrels were invented in the mid 16th century, but only very rich nobles had the money to order such a weapon. And about the one shot, a musket is reliable at 20 meters, not more. In the prussian army, a good musketier was a man who hit out of 5 shots a target in the form of horse and rider 3 times on 50 meters. An archer would start shooting at 200 meters with massed fire and will start to kill individual targets on 100-60 meters

[@finnsharp6138]

A better world

[@elshebactm6769]

🗿👍🏿

[@amirbroides5333]

I hate to bother but I heard that the comache tribe used bows at combat up until the revolver invention is that just a myth to your knowlege?

[@MalcolmPL]

It's not a myth. The Comanche were in the Spanish sphere of influence, the Spanish policy forbade selling firearms to natives. Thus the gun didn't become available until the Americans expanded westward in the eighteen hundreds. By this point the horse had already been well established in the culture. Horses change the situation, bows are much more viable when combined with horses.

[@amirbroides5333]

@@MalcolmPL I never knew that thats very interesting thank you very much

[@puppyzwolle6683]

LOL. Too short to warrant a video on it's own? And yet whole books have been written on many of these subject. Not criticizing you mind you. Because, fire arm v bow and arrow? Yeah, big nope. But on tobacco for instance? Just seeing you smoke a pipe would warrant a video.