Medieval 100 Cal! Blackpowder impact! How effective were early guns in the medieval period?

Jason invites medieval gun experts James and Ian to try out their huge calibre medieval firearms against a breastplate (which has already been shot at with a war bow and two modern rifles...) #medieval #gun #knight
• Executive Producer: Jason Kingsley OBE
• Executive Producer: Chris Kingsley
• Senior Producer: Brian Jenkins
• Producer: Edward Linley
• Director: Edward Linley
• Presenter: Jason Kingsley OBE
• Subject Matter Experts: James Green and Ian Chamberlain
• Camera: Lindsey Studholme
• Camera: Dominic Read
• Editor: Lindsey Studholme
• Stills Photographer: Kasumi
• Production Manager: Kevin Case
• Audio: Simon Norman
• Sound Design: Liam Flannigan
• Music licensed from PremiumBeat
Special Thanks:
• Chris Payton
• Michael Molcher
• Ed Mash
Falcon Eyes Bi-Color Video Led Lamp Soft Studio Light amzn.to/32N2Hei
Sony camera amzn.to/2PNHcop
Tripod amzn.to/32QUWEo
Wellies amzn.to/2wvRylT
Work gloves amzn.to/39pK1DV
Radio mike amzn.to/2Tne0H0

[@jonathand3613]

Did anybody else want to see them fire the other guns?

[@artsamurai1188]

Yes

[@ExUSSailor]

Definitely.

[@xordus]

i don't understand. That was an epic episode rife with potential content, and yet, they decided to make it as short as possible. It made no sense at all.

[@highlandrab19]

@@xordus in the uk smoothbore guns can only be used with bullets (if its over 24' barrel and you shoot shot it can go on sgc) on an fac and having a large number of those is difficult

[@stephenbachman132]

I wanted to see all weapons used yes.

[@lindybeige]

It is often held that early pistols would ping off good armour, though. Would be nice to see that tested. I didn't see the earlier videos, so I don't know the pedigree of the armour. That longbows did the armour so much harm suggests to me that it isn't the stoutest of plate.

[@ModernKnight]

It's not a good breastplate, it's a mid range better than nothing one worn by an ordinary soldier as far as we can tell. I'm certain there were much better ones, and many had much worse. It made a pretty terrifying hole, but they were super inaccurate even at close range!

[@ModernKnight]

Pistols come in a bit later I think, these medieval ones are basically hand canons.

[@lindybeige]

@@ModernKnight Thanks for the reply. Yes, the pistols were a bit later, but they were for a while used by well-armoured cavalrymen, and they out-ranged a lance just slightly. I have a piece of armour for testing stuff on, but I'm hesitating to do so, waiting for the right test.

[@ModernKnight]

PS love your channel! I have no idea how you manage to do those long chats with hardly any edits or muck ups, most impressive indeed.

[@ModernKnight]

I believe in the English Civil War, the one with roundheads in it, there are tales of pistols being pressed against and shot at armour and failing to penetrate, with corresponding letters of complaint etc. Pikes, canon and tactics had done for cavalry as a key battle winner though, at this stage and probably a fair bit earlier too.

[@Grymbaldknight]

It's worth noting that the penetrative power of these weapons (as with all missile weapons) decreases with distance. At longer ranges, the armour might've held up better. 17th century plate armour was actually made much thicker (to resist firearms). Plate armour isn't _inherently_ useless against such weapons. The biggest game-changer with firearms was the fact that literally anyone could use them.

[@nevisysbryd7450]

That they took so little training to become competent with them by comparison, yes. What phased out plate armor was not small arms but artillery (cannons) .

[@Legion12Centurion]

@@nevisysbryd7450 The same thing happened with the introduction of the crossbow. It also reshaped warfare due to how little training they required compared to say a longbow or a bow.

[@andrewparker5096]

@@nevisysbryd7450 You could say that plate armor wasn't entirely phased out until the late-mid 19th century as the ballistics of more modern projectiles improved. The cuirassier was technically used up into WWII but, more important, was considered a strategically valuable unit in the beginnings of WWI (by the French) when everything about them was ill-suited for modern war because they were so useful in the Franco-Prussian war (although by WWI the German infantry had switched from needle guns to Mausers and had adopted the machine gun). Generally though, I think you're right that the biggest game changers are in artillery since explody things kill more people than shooty things.

[@nevisysbryd7450]

@@andrewparker5096 It was in Early Modern warfare that large artillery transitioned from siege engines to finding practical deployment on open battlefields and could be readily used against formations. While plate armor did continue beyond general obsolescence in specific contexts where it still had value, the improvements in artillery and the efficacy of their deployment rendered them effectively obsolete in mass numbers. A breastplate may stop a bullet; it will not stop a cannonball. They no longer were cost-effective or worth all of the training, production cost, maintenance and discomfort of carrying and wearing around for the standard soldier once artillery so drastically reduced their importance.

[@cygil1]

Yes, this is the conventional wisdom. Many revisionists would say the conventional wisdom is bollocks.

[@thetoasterinyourbathtub1086]

People trained for decades, even dedicating their entire lives to become great swordsman. You hand some little shitter peasant boy a rifle, teach him how to use it in less than 20 minutes, and all of that melee training goes out the window. Also encountering firearms in battle for the first time must have been absolutely terrifying.

[@landsknecht8654]

Dude it doesn't take decades to become a really good Swordsman, it could take a few years to be very, very good but not decades. Unless you are talk about some crazy "master" Swordsmen then I guess but it really doesn't take that long even for that. To become a pretty good swordsman it takes about a year or so usually 8 or 9 months maybe 4 or 5 months if a fast learner by practicing two or three times a week for about 2 to 3 hours to get pretty darn good with a sword. How do I know? I do historical fencing.

[@micahcampa]

well if he had a musket proof brestplate of helmet as long as you dont get hit in the legs and arms or gaps you would be hard to kill with that on

[@andrewyoung8550]

@@landsknecht8654 I think he was just saying how some nobility would practice swordsmanship and horseback riding for most of there lives just to be gunned down by a mob of common soldiers with firearms.

[@andrewyoung8550]

@@micahcampa it would still take you out of the fight. Getting shot with body armor on hurts and puts you on your ass if it is a decent size caliber. I’m sure plenty of horsemen where shot in the breastplate and still died just from getting knocked off the horse and dragged.

[@micahcampa]

@@andrewyoung8550 very rare the brest plate does not hug your chest most have a 3 to 4inch gap Between your body and the plate so would not come In contact with your body all the force would go through and out the back plate if that where the case they would not use armor seen a brestplate with 10 shots on it the guy survived so the force will not allways do it since most of these older guns lose alot of power when shot most where going about 200mph the worst case is to have a 70 Caliber ball that is going at 800mph then i see that doing you in

[@CheapSushi]

The sound and kick of the firearm is pretty damn wicked.

[@lodziklocPL]

Party ruiner: the sound was likely added in post-production.

[@MrEvanfriend]

The sound of black powder firearms, in my experience, is not as loud as modern ones. The fact that they were inside amplified it.

[@SepticFuddy]

@@MrEvanfriend True, but they do give that crazy, cartoonish, subsonic "whizz" sound to make up for it!

[@Archris17]

Certainly surprised me! I'm used to old-timey guns sounding more like a cough or a crack than a boom! Now I really see what contemporary accounts meant when they described them as having a sound like thunder!

[@JonatasAdoM]

@CM99501 Hollow Point in a nutshell.

[@mikedrop4421]

This channel is a hidden gem

[@zaicliff3010]

So true!

[@zaicliff3010]

For the history lovers

[@NoctumusTV]

Absolutely! ... but don't tell anyone ;)

[@kamespinosarojas9225]

Indeed sir.

[@jimmastek3669]

This channel is in a league of its own!

[@avalonnnnnnnnnnnn]

"We managed to track down some mercenary gunners" Sounds like you travelled back in time ngl.

[@Enzo012]

It sounds like they went walking around town looking for some and saw a pair. 'Hey are you mercenary gunners?'

[@YataTheFifteenth]

"We got some Landsknechte for this video."

[@shaquillewang3376]

These two gentlemen really looks like Landsknecht of Holy Roman Empire, or Imperial handgunners from Warhammer Fantasy and time-travel to our time. Impressive! Thanks for making and sharing such a brilliant video!

[@lettuceman9439]

"If any Spawn of Chaos, Any Brute over the World's Edge Mountain or Even the Elder Race of Order were to dare Question the Strength of Humanity will find Thier Answer in the Empire of Man"

[@dpruittt09]

If you like Warhammer check out this guy named "astartes" has AMAZING 40k videos he made.

[@custink22]

The Empire is based on the Holy Roman Empire. So the handgunners looking like the Landschnecht makes sense.

[@drachenoger7635]

"Slowmatch" called "Lunte" in German. Still today the term is used "lunte riechen". Means to "smell slowmatch" or to smell danger. Now I can see why.

[@peterdammeliusosterode3424]

Lunta in Swedish

[@mediocreman6323]

Actually, a "Lunte" is a kind of thread you could make on a spinning wheel, exactly the kind of material they used for this kind of firearm, so, technically speaking, a "Lunte" is not just a "Zündlunte", although I guess other uses may have been pushed in the background by the ones used for guns.

[@jkoeberlein1]

Oh wow, just before an ambush and you smell the slow match. The fear must have been horrible.

[@jannes3290]

Lont in dutch

[@Loreman72]

@@jannes3290 So that's where we get 'lint' from!

[@etwothec]

All hail, Denethor, steward of Gondor!!

[@guyjin788]

Gondor has no king. Gondor needs no king.

[@guyjin788]

lmfao

[@liamwilson7549]

Max Epic 🔥🔥🔥 fleeeeee fleeeee for your lives!

[@JesusFriedChrist]

The beacons are lit, Gondor calls for aid!

[@guyjin788]

You guys are killing me. lmfao.

[@Rallion1]

"we'll start with the oldest one" *only fire the most recent one......*

[@Blake4014]

@@kaistzar2831 haha yeh true and you can even print guns now though thats obviously illegal. Technology has come along way.

[@lordfabulous6198]

The oldest were actually really dangerous for the user, so it makes sense they wouldn't use it

[@GaiusCaligula234]

@@lordfabulous6198 Not really, the more recent ones were more dangerous since the exploding powder was right near your face, buddy

[@lordfabulous6198]

@@GaiusCaligula234 I literally researched this. I'm talking about hand cannons. The problem was they had a much higher chance of simply blowing up and injuring the user, than more modern guns. That's why they didn't use the original versions.

[@GaiusCaligula234]

@@lordfabulous6198That wasn't a flaw in the design, that was a flaw of the metallurgy of the period. I thought it was pretty obvious we were talking about MODERN REPRODUCTIONS and not original examples from a museum.

[@Mannydamon]

Truly Sigmar Handgunners, for the Empire. Great demonstration, a grim injury; war is cruel.

[@a.hollins8691]

Yes but where are the Luminarks?

[@danietkissenle]

I want to see the hellblaster

[@a.wyattmann4370]

Summon The Elector Counts!!!

[@Mannydamon]

@@a.wyattmann4370 No peace, just war -Karl Franz

[@mikedrop4421]

I'd love to see this done the other way round. Suit up a dummy in modern level 3 body armor, Kevlar helmets, riot shields etcetera and have a group of long bowmen, musketeers, crossbowmen and lances attack it at will and see the effects. Would it be like a juggernaut or would the gaps in coverage allow for lethal damage?

[@Haneix1]

They probably fare better then bullets.

[@midshipman8654]

Slavik Chukhlebov to be fair, it’s “right tool for the right context”, so it may be more effective simply because modern stuff wasn’t meant to protect against a ballisticly much different firearm. I would agree that higher level plate would protect against it, but there were stories of musket balls impacting a buff coat of thick leather and instead of fully penetrating, it simply DRAGGED a portion of the coat through the wearer due to shear inertia. So Kevlar may not be as effective.

[@l.a.mottern3106]

I think the Video would be Epic :-D

[@the_mad_fool]

@@QualityPen While I agree with you on the other weapons, I doubt even Level 3 body armor would do anything to stop a couched lance from a charging horse. A 700kg knight + horse charging at 30 km/h is like, what, 50 kJ of energy? Not to mention, bullets have way less momentum/inertia than a charging horse. Even if it doesn't penetrate, I imagine that's way more blunt force than modern body armor is rated for.

[@komitadjie]

@@the_mad_fool Would be interesting, but I think it'd be really dependent on hit angle. It's *going* to glance off, there's no chance at all that it will penetrate a ballistic plate, the energy is simply too widely distributed and at far too low of a velocity, but the transfer energy is going to toss the wearer god-knows-where, or skid off into an unprotected area. Modern armor is suited to a different kind of threat level. Actually, a more useful test would probably be riot control armor, it's made for a much more melee-and-blunt-force type threat level, compared to current military armor that's optimized against high-velocity projectile protection of the vitals and shrapnel.

[@thedude1671]

Wow. KZbin finally recommended something relevant to my interests. Subbed.

[@Wanderingwalker-ke6mg]

thedude1671 had this same scenario today, now Iv watched, Christ knows how many videos from this guy! 👍🏻

[@jackkraken3888]

Really? It's been pretty awesome for me. I guess it depends on your interests.

[@jacob.g.l1592]

Thanks for letting us know!

[@tylersorenson8655]

“And they've got a lot of equipment with them” 0:44 Zooms in on the guy’s balls

[@luvkumarfilms]

Pretty "UNDERRATED"🤣

[@Ilovebrownbreadtoast]

Just imagine being a soldier when this kind of thing was in its prime. Imagine having to face up against hundreds, thousands possibly, of these being fired at you all at once. All while you’re probably also vulnerable to bombardment by artillery or a cavalry charge. Absolutely terrifying.

[@leftenanalim]

Yes, and imagine the modern type of this kind of thing being carried around you where even kids know how to use it.

[@roojackaroo8517]

I don't think wars were fought at such a scale in this time, and if they were there definetely wouldn't be many guns as they would be hard to mass produce

[@evryatis9231]

@@roojackaroo8517 napoleonic wars?

[@roojackaroo8517]

@@evryatis9231 early medieval period, i don't think wars fought in the 1800s count m8

[@evryatis9231]

@@roojackaroo8517 my bad I didnt think much before posting

[@tbirum]

A few issues with this video (Fantastic Channel I am a sub) 1. We didn't gt to see how far back they were standing when they fired the guns. 2. They only fired the 1 gun each, would have liked to see them fire them all. 3. Would have liked to see them fire the guns from different ranges 20 meters--40 meters--60 meters. This would have shown what kind of accuracy these medieval guns had and what the penetration was from the varying distances. Great channel, but I found this particular video to be a bit disappointing. Perhaps you guys could one day revisit this experiment and test out things a bit more thoroughly.

[@Dakotaidk]

Amen

[@maxwheaton5865]

Another issue is the armor is old and rusted, having been breached previously. It also is fastened perfectly still with no give like a person would. Finally there is no padded gambeson as would be typical for this kind of armor

[@IIIRobIII]

This is the content i need.

[@maxwheaton5865]

@john Mullholand I do not think you can say that for certain without emperical evidence. This is much akin to other videos you can find of swords wacking stiff held armor or bows doing the same. I'm not saying the armor is bullet proofed at all. As firstly, such a concept doesn't exist. Personal armor can be bullet resistant, not proof. Then in final, what I want to see is a scientific test preformed in more realistic conditions at varried ranges in order to better understand the use and power of early black powder weaponry

[@lukasdimmler2622]

@@maxwheaton5865 In late medieval times breastplates were often "bullet proofed" by shooting a bullet at them and therefore proofing the capabilities of the armor. This term is not equivalent to the modern term. The bullet dent basically was the proofing stamp for this armor.

[@davek.8243]

They did invent bulletproof plates consisting of sandwiched armour, and those held up quite well to those kind of firearms

[@stephenlee1664]

No matter the armor eventually after a long battle it's durability and the amount of protection it provides will diminish. It would be far cheaper to have a bunch of footsoldiers with guns to continuously fire at that knight until he dies rather than pay for those bulletproof armor that would degrade relatively quickly over the course of a battle.

[@steirqwe7956]

I think by "degrading" he means mechanical damage from absorbing shots. I saw interesting test with longbow and breastplate and after about 20 consecutive shots arrow actually manage to pierce the armor and deliver serious injury to wearer (a sack with hay in their case).

[@AudieHolland]

Yes, during the late 16th century, the commanders would still be wearing full plate steel armour. Only the lower legs and hands were not protected since they preferred some more mobility and army commanders would not have to fight the enemy up close anyway, so no gauntlets. You can find photos of a reconstruction of Prince Maurits' riding armour "prins maurits harnas"

[@pashapasovski5860]

@@stephenlee1664 shoot the horse under him and he's dead from all the weight, Just ask Wilder, hahahaha!🥊

[@mungo7136]

@@stephenlee1664 Actually in the open battle scenario those footsoldiers would have exactly one shot upon the attacking cavalry. Polish hussaria as well as scottish clan charging with cold weapons against footsoldiers armed also with firearms and defeating them proves it. But you are most likely right about the money. With firearm and little training you can transform peasant into useful soldier while it takes long time to master sword or horse and long spears. One can be made in numbers and cheaply replaced other is sort of the special forces.

[@AleksiJoensuu]

If I ever saw something that I felt would require a set of protective eyewear, this would have been it!

[@QaRajhCreations]

Well with everything flammable and explosive, you have to treat it right, and have some favour with Lady Luck. Hence why gunpowder storages were amongst the most highly guarded parts of a military camp second only to the command of said camp. And the guard activity was not so much because it could go up in smoke (often literally), but simply because when guns started to outnumber crossbows and bows, the effectiveness of the force at the camp were almost completely relying on their supply of gunpowder being of good quality, and in an untampered state. Bad gunpowder (or bad gun-construction in some cases) could mean the gun blowing apart trying to fire, which could very easily be lethal to the gunner trying to aim it. It could also mean that the gun simply wouldn't fire, which, with the earliest guns was even slower than most crossbows, was a very long time where it didn't do what it was supposed to. Early medieval guns were considered more as anti-personnel artillery pieces, and the gun itself was typically very expensive, without a back-up, in case it should break. Gunners would often have simple swords for use in melee, but like archers and crossbowmen, they were never designated an actual close range combat role. Because of the expense of creating, maintaining and firing the gun, early guns were strictly used by defenders, again, like artillery pieces, and never in offensive charges or rushes of infantry; the risk of losing not only the gunner, who was often a specially trained and specialized unit, but also the expensive technology of the gun itself, was more than enough to keep most army commanders from sending gunners mixed in with regular infantry out to lay siege. Furthermore is the fact that the accuracy of the early guns, and their fairly short range, meant that you wouldn't, if possible, want to waste shots, so the gunner would not be charging forward to get in range, have an unstable breathing, and then trying to actually hit something. The transition from cannon-sized guns to the hand-cannon, is probably best exemplified in the Turkish Abus Guns, which could vary a lot in size, reload time, range and actual effectiveness.

[@michaelsoltesz3779]

Right. All that black powder...the chaotic report...the gun itself...lead chunks...eeeeeek! Safety goggles everyone! 🤓

[@iainshallish2631]

Exactly what I saw...earmuffs would be wise too

[@custink22]

Try firing a flintlock. Without eye pro, you run the risk of little bits of hot rock flying into your eyes. Even with eye pro, i got a cut under my eye from a flake of flint that splintered. But lord theyre fun. I want a matchlock and a wheel lock too, and a few early hand cannons.

[@dotech4128]

Wow the progression from essentially mini cannon to rifle is amazing. The evolution of the lock and trigger mechanism is fascinating. This channel just keeps on providing more and more educational entertainment. I hope you don’t stop with these videos. It makes me proud to have paid for every installment of the Sniper Elite series lol.

[@ModernKnight]

lol, thanks for playing Sniper Elite!

[@dotech4128]

@@ModernKnight have you ever considered making a medieval themed game? Or would it be difficult to not pick too many nits over the realism?

[@pauld9730]

This channel makes me so happy. Love it, guys. Keep up the great work.

[@alexandercorvinus6015]

So let me elaborate a little bit. -- Most armors were pretty effective at combating pistol rounds. Armor could be musket proof, & if it were musket proof, it'd be pistol proof. It would cost a lot, & would really be reserved for the upper-echelon of society. That's why full plate armor was either reserved for royalty, high nobility, or the extremely wealthy. Most knights were fairly wealthy, & often times a few steps above the lowest form of gentry & often times being the lowest form of nobility themselves (depending on country). Knight armor changed so much throughout the years & was eventually phased out for three-quarters armor, or even half armor as firearms became more advanced; which would've been thicker in the torso & helmet, with minor protection to arms & legs or potentially none at all (See armor of the English Civil War or think of a Cuirassier for examples or simply Google the armor names I've mentioned). You also have to keep in mind that armor would've been angled & reinforced all over the body, but especially to the torso & helmets (hence ridge-lines, & angled helmets, you can also see a lot of reinforcing in Gothic & Maximilian styled full plate armor where there was a lot of fluted & ridged areas on the surface of the armor) to deflect anything hitting it. There was also the fact that the shot / round would lose velocity the further away it was shot, & had the possibility of barely damaging the armor, the person wearing it might not even feel it & may only hear the "tink" of the shot hitting them. Historical ball type-shot ballistics vs. modern bullet ballistics are quite different. The round ball shot is going to tumble in the air, & bounce on its way out of the non-rifled musket / (like-term); while a modern bullet using smokeless & refined powder would fly a lot more accurately, faster, & straighter, especially coming out of a rifled barrel & the bullet being a lot more aerodynamic. Black powder & modern smokeless powder burn at different rates, & have different explosive measures, & it was also common for pistols & carbines back then to be on par with their musket counterparts via caliber size, & sometimes even powder charge. It more-so came down to the accuracy of the weapon, due to a longer barrel, or rifling. So, I won't say that all armor of the time period was musket proof; but I will say, that for people who could afford it, it definitely was to some degree. Everything breaks after a while, & the armor would eventually lose some of it's structural integrity which could lead to someone shooting through armor, or a round hitting in the same spot further weakening an already weakened spot; but that depends on how the armor was made, what materials it was made with & a great amount of "dumb luck". I wouldn't think general munitions armor (armor given to basic soldiers) would be musket proof for the most part. They were more like what flak-jackets would've been. Cheap, & helped negate damage from any sort of shrapnel or blade. Possibly / very rarely (among a vast distance or by the luck of whatever faith the person chose to believe in) munitions armor may stop a shot. Not as good as quality, well-made armor, but some armor was definitely musket proof. Also, while they may not have had proper flintlocks, the doglocks, miquelets, snaphaunce, snaplocks, matchlocks, handgonnes, etc. were all essentially advancements to firearms & that of the flintlock musket, & it essentially provided less steps to the reload method of what a matchlock would be, & the true flintlock provided an actual 'half-cock' for loading, etc. I'd also like to go even further & point out that depending on the time period, a 'Medieval' plated knight would've typically had some sort of cloth shirt, then an arming doublet or padded gambeson which would either have patches of mail sewn into it where the exposed bits of plate armor would be, or on top of the gambeson they'd wear a mail shirt, then finally strap the plate to that. That's roughly 3-4 layers (depending on where the shot lands, & if they have a separate mail shirt), not to mention the reinforced & curved parts of armor that a shot would have to go through, & on top of that (although it was relatively rare at certain times, especially with the development of full plate armor), the man-at-arms, or Knight+ in this case, may also want to carry a shield often either wooden or metal or a combination, which is another layer (& a half maybe) for your shot to get through. I won't bother with possible gilding of armor, etc. 'cause odds are it'd be somewhat negligible, but maybe by the skin of your teeth it'd help the armor's structural integrity. Let's also point out that also depending on the time period you'd either be shooting rocks (likely in handgonnes & earlier firearms), or lead ball shot. Depending on the rock, it'd most likely shatter, & lead would deform on itself & sort of 'splash' out / implode on impact. People in the comments are saying that the armor is too thin, severely rusted, & has already been tested on. I agree with them. As much money as it'd cost, I'm sure the results would be worth it; plus if you can find someone who actually enjoys this, & has the time to make an authentic breast plate, not even the whole thing, just for the sake of the experiment, it may be a lot cheaper than you'd think. It's mentioned in the video that it's already been used for lances, horseman's picks, & the longbow. All viable in their own right, but you've already warped / damaged the armor & lowered it's structural integrity even further than what it already was giving an edge to the firearms. Plus, I've seen videos where with quality armor, long bow arrows can't penetrate the armor. Maybe munitions grade, but not something a knight would wear. Agincourt had a lot going on too, & that's another debate; but it's still in the same sort of situation as these firearms. I'm not saying any of this isn't plausible, but depending on the factors, not as likely. For those who read this massive unorganized text, thank you for taking the time to read it. Have a great day.

[@danbeck1593]

It was worth reading.

[@ragnkja]

Alexander Corvinus The breastplate used here was indeed a pre-firearm style one, with later ones being made significantly thicker because of the different type of attack they had to protect against. I am sure you have seen examples of armourers shooting the lower edge of a breastplate to prove that it was thick enough to protect against a bullet.

[@CoffeeSnep]

This is a good point about test quality. One good example I have is that I've seen plenty of tests of longbows and crossbows against breastplates. In most of them, cheap breast plates are used and claimed to be normal breast plates. The arrow either penetrates or dents it (usually dents it). Then when I find tests of expensive armor hand crafted with historical processes (such as eastern European conventions) the arrow or bolt glances off with only a barely noticeable scratch, and the arrow breaks. The point of this paragraph being that with many integrity tests with armors, you *really* have to read between the lines.

[@ericwood3709]

Judging from this and the responses to it, a new video with new armor of a more period-appropriate and accurately made sort is called for. An armor versus gun rematch!

[@xcd87]

didn"t read all of it.

[@yankee1112]

Thanks for the video guys!

[@chagadiel]

30 plus years ago my cousin had a fantastic book on medieval warfare. It gave a fantastic example of the drastic change of warfare the gun. It recounted all the great things a gallant and skilled french knight acheived in his military career. This included charging into the enemy ranks cutting his way to and stealling the enemy standard and also when he was wounded he killed several of his own men defending the farmers wife and children they were resting in. His last battle for all his skill he was shot by a gun from some unknown soldier.

[@BaronVonQuiply]

Hark! What weapon hast thou brought to battle on this fine day? An Aye Art 15, m'lord.

[@primal_guy1526]

Jolly! We shalt slay thine heretics with thy weapon!

[@CaptApril123]

I can actually heear US Marines saying this in my head...lol

[@TheGreatPower365]

Hath thee an Aye Kay four and seven?

[@santisomchay1978]

Why did I just now just find out about this channel.i love this

[@MrElliptific]

thank you so much for the video. All kind of fun facts, well presented and interesting.

[@philjamieson5572]

Great piece. You make your point with incredible clarity. So well presented.

[@ModernKnight]

Glad you think so!

[@lilwater7358]

"I would say with close enough distance..." every gun before 1600 in a nutshell

[@jeddkeech259]

More like before 1840s lol

[@tomsmith5216]

Smoothbore guns were not very accurate. Thats why they lined up shoulder to shoulder and fired volleys. They were bound to hit someone on the other side, not necessarily who they were aiming at.

[@tomsmith5216]

@@jeddkeech259 With the advent of rifled barrels, accuracy greatly improved. Kentucky longrifles were very accurate in the 1700s.

[@landsknecht8654]

Well Smooth Bore guns are not very accurate they were long barrels would kept the accuracy fairly distant. A lot of these arquebus and muskets that was smooth board can still hit a target fairly accurately at a hundred meters. Also as soon as pistols and arquebus were invented the Europeans already started to experiment with rifling in the 15th century.

[@landsknecht8654]

@@tomsmith5216 I completely agree the Europeans Advanced Firearms so much they already overtook China and any country in the world that had a firearm by the early 15th century.

[@abouttime837]

the delay between the initial explosion and the bullet shooting out gives it a very raw feel. I can hardly fathom the force of modern gun but this must’ve been terrifying back in the day

[@Schwarzvogel1]

Modern firearms are much more powerful and reliable than these obsolete fireams. In some ways, even contemporary "mouse guns" like .25 ACP pocket pistols are far, far more potent. The idea of being able to carry a weapon small enough to be concealed even in a jeans pocket (and certainly in medieval costume), and that can kill a man with a single shot up to 50 feet away is quite powerful in its own right. (Note that .25 ACP is certainly lethal past 50 ft., but most people wouldn't be able to reliably hit targets past that range with a Baby Browning, unless they have a lot of practice.) They really didn't have anything equivalent back then.

[@kirkmorrison6131]

I found this post I had missed. It was one of the best ones you have posted. I understand now why armor became to heavy to be practical once guns became common. Thank, you, Sir, my condolences on your country's loss.

[@johnbuxton6009]

That was brilliant. Thanx so much

[@ModernKnight]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@qpid8110]

Moment of silence for Breastplate. 🌈👼

[@Astuga]

Depends. The breastplate in use is stated to be a contemporary one, but how was its actual quality? Of course the topic is the medieval period, but later armor or breast plates were somewhat bulletproof (especially regarding pistols, long range rifle shoots and ricochets). We know this fe. from heavy cavalry (Cuirassier) and historical witness accounts. During the second Turkish siege at Vienna (1683) a prisoner who wore a breastplate mocked the Turcs to shoot at him, which they did, but not a single bullet went through his armor. Enraged they killed him with their sabres.

[@ph11p3540]

Keep in mind these were mild steel that was not much better than pot metal. It did not help that steels at this time were brittle with chemical impurities like sulfur and oxygen. Only sword steel received extra special attention. Metallurgy and chemistry were still a hit or miss art back then. Only the Chinese and Japanese had a really clear understanding of how steel behaves with different trace metals and heating techniques at the time. Damascus steels were almost a lost art and very rare at that time as most of the blacksmiths with the knowledge were most like killed by Hunter and later Mongolian raids.

[@Astuga]

Actually you are wrong on many points... kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqHXh2OeZbCqoMU&t=2415 @@ph11p3540

[@vanivanov9571]

@@Astuga Nice, I love that doc!

[@jasontempleton2445]

Yeah it's really "greaves" me to see that.

[@VSO_Gun_Channel]

Expected results, but still fun

[@gerhardthoffmann]

Searching in technical history ist one right way to find the real circumstances...take care...

[@seanmcdonald5859]

An absolute gem of a show and what a history show SHOULD be.

[@drax1s729]

This may be my favorite channel on KZbin. Not just for the educational content, but the awesome music. Everything is surprisingly calming.

[@ModernKnight]

Glad you enjoy it.

[@robertoprestigiacomo253]

Karl Franz watches and nods, visibly pleased. (Warhammer people will understand)

[@NeoChronoid]

Summon the elector counts!

[@generationm2059]

Steel, gunpowder, and faith!

[@Robert399]

It's worth noting that breastplates could be made pistol- and even rifle-proof so guns didn't make armour obsolete overnight. However, once you have to do that, the all-important protection/mobility tradeoff gets a lot worse plus no body armour can ever be cannon-proof. So you see a gradual shift away from the full-body, more encumbering suits of armour towards partial protection, culminating in the heavy cavalry armour of the Napoleonic era.

[@GaiusCaligula234]

"Rifle-proof"? I have heard of musket-proof breastplates, but not of rifle-proof.

[@Robert399]

@@GaiusCaligula234 That's what I meant. I just used "rifle" in the modern sense to distinguish it from pistols. I know rifle implies rifling but "musket" is also inaccurate because it excludes arquebuses and other earlier firearms. I'm not sure what the right word is.

[@GaiusCaligula234]

@@Robert399 Yeah, that's a problem I struggle with too :P maybe just early gun? Or long gun?

[@TheGreatPower365]

@@GaiusCaligula234 long gun for sure

[@Freakincident]

These videos are phenomenal

[@thedukeofskull1383]

I can't believe that I didn't find this site earlier. This is fascinating! I have studyed midevil times for years and I love it.

[@tkilley5248]

Judging from the smoke, Modern powder was used. Older (Meal) powder was immensely powerful for the times, But was no where near as powerful as today's powders.

[@knight1506]

also very dangerous as well

[@tkilley5248]

@@knight1506 Very true. Original formulae would easily separate, and also become volatile during transport and handling. Simple bag friction could cause an explosion or fast fire. It wasn't until early corning methods that stability was truly achieved, and even then, the dust was easily ignited. Thank the ancients for beeswax seals

[@ilyamerzlyakov5540]

maybe a smaller charge was used to simulate the energy of a black powder shot

[@ubersoldado]

interesting chain of comments. thanks.

[@jon_watson3740]

@@ilyamerzlyakov5540 Oh boy oh boy... You are so freaking wrong. DON'T EVER, under any circumstances use "smaller charge" of modern powder as replacement for black powder. It always is super stupid and super dangerous. Modern powder is not only more powerfull... It is completely different substant - with much higher presser of burning and it needs gun made of proper material to be safely used.

[@Leto85]

Inventing such a modern weapon must have been so difficult; it's completely different from what was already out there on the field. All that training of the knight and the horse, and it takes one bullet to end it all.

[@scintillam_dei]

DEVS VVLT

[@Leto85]

@@scintillam_dei What does that mean?

[@4thlancasterregimentoffoot471]

@@Leto85 "God wills it". It's kinda like a war cry from crusades.

[@Minimeister317]

That *sound* of them going off was absolutely incredible! Holy hell.

[@willimeister2553]

I just discovered this channel and this looks pretty neat. You just earned a sub

[@dasnurk]

I honestly, even knowing the prowess on flintlock pistols, did not expect the massive amount of damage that those shots dealt. Sweet lord, that was absolute destruction!

[@robertharris6092]

Theres far too much lack of detail with this video. and if the range IQ something you'd realistically see on a battlefield it of likely not pierced at all. Also a question of what powder they used. Period black powder was far less powerful then modern powder.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@robertharris6092 From the smoke and flame it's pretty obvious they were using black powder. There's nothing special about modern black powder, in fact most of what you find today is a bit less potent than common powders 150 years ago. It all depends on purity of ingredients and how much care is put into its production. The first black powders were less reliable than modern ones and produced more fouling but I'm not sure if they were significantly less powerful, or if so when they reached the power they had in the 18th or 19th century.

[@fancyultrafresh3264]

"This is called a hook gun, for a very good reason; it has a hook." - Some English bloke

[@mrroberts7828]

they are also sometimes called 'tiller guns' because when hooked over a wall they look like a boat or ships tiller

[@robinderoos1166]

Give it to a girl, and you have a hooker!

[@chesterpanda]

It’s nice to see a show actually have someone know what they’re talking about when in it comes to guns. I need to get or make myself some of these older, contemporary black powder boomsticks.

[@stockloc]

This was SUPER satisfying. Thanks!

[@ModernKnight]

our pleasure, thanks for watching.

[@neft16]

Just wanted to say those two "period mercenaries" seemed like all round top blokes, would love to grab a beer with them one day!

[@Tobias5036]

I would also be curious to see the effect of these middle age rifles against modern plate carrier rigs.

[@OliverFlinn]

my bet is penetration. if cannon balls are capable of penetrating frontal armour of a Tiger 1, i think a cal .50 lead ball is going to penetrate a plate carrier..

[@SaadKhan-xn1xv]

Jason, I want to give you my heartfelt thanks for what you do on this channel. Medieval European history is something that has captured my interest ever since I was a little kid in school. The enthusiasm, presentation style and information you bring to your videos make them an absolute treat to watch. Hope you're doing well and staying safe.

[@ModernKnight]

Thanks for watching and your kind comments. We are locked down here but I am blessed to be on my farm with good weather and horses. All the best to you and yours too.

[@saddleridge4364]

@@ModernKnight Good weather and horses, on your own farm. That's heaven on earth to some of us. :)

[@stanislawrudzki1773]

Awesome video!

[@mindofmark742]

This is what the History Channel was supposed to be.

[@mortson978]

Would plate armor be effective against ancient aliens though?

[@vtrmcs]

But in fairness, the Kardhasians tits have changed so much that version 1's would now be considered as historical interest.

[@Exploder11]

What about medieval guns versus modern ballistic armor? I like this video a whole lot.

[@ArtoPekkanen]

Btoom! The sound these early guns make is so satisfying :D it's like a miniature cannon

[@NingTang1972]

Very impressive. Thanks.

[@EHilgy17]

"Handgunners! Ready arms! Sigmar guide our shots!"

[@ReichenbachEsq]

More black powder gun videos!

[@HelenKellerDenier]

That's probably the coolest most professional KZbin Intro I've seen yet. Love this channel.

[@LecherousLizard]

They put a thin, rusting iron sheet on a dummy. How is that any more "professional" than a random nobody using some 100 dollar replica?

[@SprayNpreyT]

beautiful craftsmanship

[@monicapyle]

Just discovered you. Subscribed♥️

[@j_d_gamer2091]

That’s some pretty cheap armor there. There was a great episode of NOVA where the replicated a steel breastplate from either the 15th-16th century and fired a medieval gun at it. It stopped the bullet. Also, ( I think it was at The Met ) there are lots of pieces of armor with deep dents in them. Those were bullet strikes that didn’t go through. Guns and knights co-existed for a good couple hundred years. Hence, I believe the downfall of the medieval knight as we know it was his expensive paycheck, and the rise of more standardized standing armies. Guns played their part yes, but really weren’t the main reason.

[@ProjectThunderclaw]

Many of those dents will have been "bullet proofs" inflicted as part of the testing if the armor. Basically, they'd just shoot it with a pistol, and if it didn't penetrate that meant the armor was of acceptable quality Which on one hand does prove they did protect from firearms, but on the other a pistol in testing conditions is not the same as a musket in the battlefield so -shrug-

[@steirqwe7956]

Its not visible without close examination but armor that was designed to be bulletproof is much thicker than ones designed to protect from swords and poleaxes (3-4 mm. in chest area vs 1.2-1.5 mm. respectively). In addition bulletproof breastplate have more pronounced keel in the middle to reduce contact angle. Just compare gothic cuirass to polish hussar cuirass.

[@damianb8322]

@@ProjectThunderclaw Even XVII c chainmail sometimes could resist firearm shot. Effectiveness of firearms until XVIII is... arguable.

[@ToreDL87]

@@damianb8322 Yeah and a lot of the time you'd have poor shooters, bad quality gun powder, or even bad projectiles if the battle/campaign lasted long enough to affect the supply situation, oftentimes they'd use rocks instead of lead ball. The gun wasnt the complete be-all end-all like a lot of people think.

[@roberthaworth8991]

These whoppers would go through even the latest-era steel armor at anything under 75 yards. Remember, armor so heavy it can stop all threats is too heavy to move or fight in -- usually, even when mounted. True plate armor was also extremely expensive and thus rare. The one-upping technological war between offense and defense will likely never end; these guns and armored knights were just a blip in time in that contest.

[@djuzi4514]

I would love to see more of this. Especially seeing some of the earlier hand cannons against plate armor.

[@chrissre7935]

The sound has this great punch to it.

[@seyvrredther6628]

Imagine robbing a bank with this thing

[@evryatis9231]

"NO WAIT I'M RELOADING"

[@Petaurista13]

...and being knocked out with damn nightstick after you miss 1st shot.

[@Tylerjrb]

Don’t need to crack the safe just shoot it blow a hole big enough for you to crawl inside.

[@jesternario]

Back when 2nd edition was the only edition in town,, so around the 1990s or so, someone wanted to make a character with plate armor in a setting where world war 1 era firearms were avaialble. When I told them that a modern bullet would go right through plate mail, they argued with me for a solid hour before just leaving. I wish I could've shown them this video.

[@Lighthammer18]

WW1 lobster armour would probably do it, but it only covers the torso and weighs more than your mum. There's a reason why nobody used it.

[@jesternario]

@@Lighthammer18 Yeah, because it's made with metal that's like an inch thick. Your average plate armor is only a few centimeters thick, from what I've seen.

[@Lighthammer18]

@@jesternario Yeah medieval plate armour doesn't stand a chance against a maxim gun. It would probably stop most of the shrapnel ordinance but that doesn't matter much if you're charging towards a macinegun nest.

[@dustinf11]

How have I not see this? Great video.

[@turtle_food8774]

Looks amazing!

[@Schnozinski]

That transitional period into guns being a thing must have been insanely frustrating and scary for nobles. Their full suit of armor suddenly gives them very little advantage against the standard rank and file during battle. Some cheeky dude in a button-up shirt holding a cannon attached to a stick can put a fist-sized hole through you if he feels like it.

[@roadhigher]

Firearms is what put the nail in the coffin for Feudalism after all. Now that any random peasant could be given a Musket and be trained in a few days to be the most effective soldier on the battlefield, Nobility and Knights lost their status as Battle-Deciders. Knights were no longer the be all end all of Warfare, and with that their influence started to decline.

[@randomnobodovsky3692]

@@roadhigher Feudalism kept going despite firearms - didn't die, just adapted. Nobility kept their influence and social status. Eeven now, modern european elites have surprisingly large percentage of former nobility/aristocrats; especially in western Europe. And if they didn't, it wasn't due to firearms, but due to economic changes and/or revolutions (e.g. Netherlands had both).

[@violetsapphire952]

So IIRC (don't @ me, I may be wrong), armour technology did adapt to combat guns and, for a while, armourers managed to make breastplates that were proof against musketballs, if you could afford one. An armourer would fire a proof shot into the breastplate to prove that it could actually stop a round, hence the word "bullet-proof". But as muskets got stronger and stronger, musketproof armour had to get heavier and heavier until it was abandoned entirely cause you could barely move in the stuff.

[@einzelfeuer_2855]

@@violetsapphire952 You're absolutely right. Plate metal was made that could stop most guns most of the time all the way through the Napoleonic wars. Most people have no idea what they're talking about regarding history. They simply regurgitate foolish Americanisms about "nobility bad! Peasant with gun good!"

[@diebygaming8015]

@@roadhigher Feudalism found a way to survive and it's alive today, it's called "GUN CONTROL"

[@Khyrid]

There was a youtuber who had his girlfriend shoot him with a .50 cal desert eagle point blank using only a book for armor. (He died).

[@andremilanimartin3338]

You could call that natural selection. You have to be pretty stupid in every possible capacity to think that a bit of glue and wood would stop a bullet. Even my 7.5 joule air pistol passes around 10 layers of cardboard. Then what do you expect of a 3800 J bullet...... I guess firearm safety is too much to expect from someone who doesnt manage to use anti pregnancy measures like condoms and pills.

[@spartankongcountry6799]

This isnt real, is it? Edit: I just saw it and it's real.

[@weisthor0815]

natural selection at it´s finest.

[@SunMonkeyInc]

Who

[@TheCharles1234567]

@@SunMonkeyInc the woman that shot is called monalisa perez, and the boyfriend Pedro Ruiz III

[@johnnymccann5607]

that was wonderful.

[@Corsuwey]

The best thing about guns from those days is the steps you have to go through to load them. Patience in the midst of battle is a very key thing.

[@roberthaworth8991]

In the flintlock era a trained soldier would load, present, fire, and recover as fast as he could, largely without thinking about it. Sometimes their main issue was where they were in the cycle -- if you lost track of that, you might load two charges by accident, or try to present an unloaded piece. But a solid average of three (semi-aimed) shots per minute was expected, and four per minute certainly achievable over short engagements.

[@JukeboxTheGhoul]

EARLY MEDIEVAL guns? Can't wait to see Charlemagne's musket. :P

[@tettsui255]

Merovingian Musketeers

[@JukeboxTheGhoul]

@@tettsui255 Underrated comment

[@windhelm7375]

Roman machine guns and Greek tanks

[@pratik1568]

I felt the power of those rifles through my screen its a proper boom stick

[@user-kq2hr3kj3k]

Amazing. Thank you. Loved it. Especially clear pure English language

[@ModernKnight]

You are welcome

This is proper interesting. Very nice video

[@TheSirBrainbug]

I have never seen medieval guns in action, this stuff is fantastic! Btw what kind of powder were they using?

[@ModernKnight]

Modern black powder.

[@GaiusCaligula234]

@@ModernKnight So black powder substitute like Pyrodex or actual black powder?

[@damianb8322]

@@ModernKnight ... which is cleaner and stronger than the one used hundreds of years ago, when the quality of gunpowder varied until the 18th century, when the development of chemistry and production technology led to an improvement in gunpowder parameters and the introduction of newer recipes.

[@maximilianmustermann5763]

@@damianb8322 About the black powder quality: a guy at my range shoots pistol matches with historic percussion pistols and two of his guns are from the 1820ies. He said the only thing he had to change in these pistols is the firing nipple (the part were you put the percussion cap on) because back in the 1820ies, black powder was still of mediocre quality and so the nipples had large holes in them to make the pistols fire reliably. With today's black powder though, you can make the holes much smaller and thereby increase the precision of the pistol. But maybe it wasn't only about the quality of the black powder per se, but also about the environmental influences the powder had to endure back then. A competition shooter today will obviously transport and load the powder under ideal conditions.

[@stephen447]

Loving the videos. How were the Tournaments of old organised? From the start of the day, how did knights prepare for Tournaments, what were the rules and how were they decided? What happened after a Tournament were their feasts?

[@jasonkingsley2762]

There were so many different types of tournament across so many years that a simple answer is not easy. The rules and specific events varied from place to place, Henry VIII had to swiftly have his armour changed when some rules were changed at one event, so that sounds like things were not standardised much at all.

[@stephen447]

Jason Kingsley - That sounds like a great intro to one of your brilliant videos. Any chance of covering these points in a new video? 😀 'A day in the life of a knight at Tournament'.

[@jasonkingsley2762]

sounds like a good idea. I'll do some research!

[@CruentusCruor]

Thank you again for the amazing content~!!

[@cointreasurehunt1319]

Short and enjoyable video, but as informative and interesting as ever, thanks 🙂

[@sultankebab1587]

Lmao they look like weaponsmith dwarves especially the dude in the blue.

[@garrettparks7439]

Fun video, but I was wondering, at what distance from the breastplate were these guns fired? At what distance would they become ineffective against armor?

[@vanivanov9571]

That depends heavily on the armour. Some armour can take gunfire at point-blank range and be fine. /watch?v=8ptV0h0Kwjc&feature=youtu.be&t=2415

[@vanivanov9571]

As for the video... they were 10-15 metres away, according to the channel.

[@jackhughes3981]

You also have to take int account that a musket (because of the lack of riffling) was not particularly accurate even, at close to point blank range, add to that the psychological impact of the charge and the cheaper cavalry regiments of the 18th and 19th centuries continue to be very effective against the undisciplined conscripts of Austria and Russia.

[@S3l3ct1ve]

@@jackhughes3981 indeed the other fellow missed a little eve from that distance

[@sebastiaandewit159]

@@jackhughes3981 yeah, but as they said in the arrow-episodes the cavalry would ride so close together you couldn't miss them.

[@j453]

Great vid 👍👍

[@Darkboy2525]

Woow ! I would NEVER have thought it had such power behind it !

[@jasonbrody6706]

These are too short honestly Also that gun sounded EPIC

[@Harquebuze]

I've seen a real one from the 1520s. It was about the same size. The main difference that struck me was how crudely constructed it was, and how thick the barrel was compared to firearms from the 1600s and later. It also had both front and rear sights.

[@Galdenberry_Lamphuck]

SUMMON THE ELECTOR COUNTS

[@Sebastian-rr7de]

total war high five

[@herveblanche226]

More good work. Thanks.

[@ModernKnight]

Thank you too!

[@josephl6896]

BOAAAAAWWWMMMM! That sound (particularly the second one) was so incredibly satisfying.

[@nathanleschke4719]

"We made a thumb-sized hole." "Well, it's about the size of your thumb..."

[@nathanleschke4719]

@Anteep Couldn’t be larger than your thumb, though.

[@statosphereonline2008]

@@nathanleschke4719 I dunno, it may very well be larger than your thumb.

[@nathanleschke4719]

@@statosphereonline2008 Listen, while the hole may be about the size of your thumb, I think it's safe to say that the hole is, on the whole, thumb-sized.

[@statosphereonline2008]

@@nathanleschke4719 thumb-sized it is, if it is the hole you are talking about.

[@j.t.bumbaday1489]

Aboit one thumb fits in the hole I guess

[@earthknight60]

What about the two handgonnes they had with them?

[@talisdorman.9796]

Pots de fer, roundelades and more.

[@ocanaldomehmeh1893]

I didnt know about this channel until today but from now on you Sir... You are subscribed!

[@ModernKnight]

Welcome aboard!

[@Thiviru_premarathne]

Old is gold ❤️💛

[@Andvare]

"Very special liquid" indeed...

[@krzysztofbroda5376]

I wonder why couldn't he just say it's a solution of saltpeter

[@Hassillo]

The first one used to be called PÍŠŤALA . That evolved to the PISTOL. It was a Hussite weapon in early XV. century.

[@schniebling12]

I was really blessed while finding this channel

[@wolfsheulen]

love this channel!

[@DetectiveMekova]

Two of the most profound adaptions to human warfare was using Horses, and using Guns. Then some ass had the idea of combining the two concepts.

[@krashd]

Yeah, it still annoys me that we wasted all that money trying to teach a horse to shoot, but the dolphins with bombs project more than made up for it.

[@emmish64]

Stirrups deserve an honorable mention

[@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606]

The Cavalry was born. Eventually however they stabled the horses for tanks and helicopters creating arguably the scariest form of infantry combat to date the “Air Cav”

[@scintillam_dei]

@@krashd Reminds me of the sharks with lasers jokes from the degenerate Hellywood enter-containment titled Austin Powers.

[@mazadancoseben4818]

@@scintillam_dei , that's blasting-Feminity! Stop. Overindulgence leads to full wickets!

[@amandabriscoe4829]

I'm curious, at what distance were they firing at the breastplate? I didn't catch it in the video.

[@ModernKnight]

They were about 10-15 metres away, to ensure they hit the target!

[@amandabriscoe4829]

Thank you very much. :) Would the medieval firearms struggle (in accuracy) to hit something further than 15 metres away? If yes, by how much?

[@jasonkingsley2762]

@@amandabriscoe4829 yes, they miss a lot, even at close range. useful at massed enemy though.

[@projectilequestion]

@@amandabriscoe4829 No. Early firearms were not as inaccurate as most Medievalists want you to believe. In fact I was expecting someone in the comments to ask this, and so finally I have something useful to contribute. The myth of the inaccuracy of smoothbore muskets was started by rifle manufactures who were enthusiastic to promote the new technology. Depending on the gun powder and calibre, a musket could hold about an 18 inch group at 50 yards, and about a 5 feet group at 100 yards. Of course these impressive performances could not be achieved under combat conditions.

[@StevenWalker]

@@projectilequestion I hope you realise that an 18" group at 50 yards is terrible accuracy.

[@dudester873]

Those post-medieval guns are very fascinating. Thank you MHTV for posting this.

[@Will-Parr]

Well presented. Excellent

[@ModernKnight]

Thanks for watching