Knight VS Legionary

[@PacopicooftheDuty]

This is turning into a low budget deadliest warrior. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

[@mondaysinsanity8193]

Pajarraco low budget but more accurate deadliest warrior

[@Clark_808]

*more accurate

[@mondaysinsanity8193]

Jerden Caday I said that?

[@Seriously_Unserious]

IMO Deadliest Warrior would have been so much better if they actually had someone who knew anything at all about historical weapons on the production team. Their disdain of chainmail got me wondering if it was any good, but I knew there had to be more to it then that since it was used so much. Then it turns out they knew nothing about the equipment they were supposed to be evaluating and didn't even know the difference between butted and riveted mail. I may be no expert on historical weapons and armor, but I still have enough common sense to know that if you rivet or weld metal rings together, it's far, far stronger then if you just bend it into a circle and leave it at that. If only someone like the Metatron or Shad had been on that show, it'd have been so much better and more accurate.

[@maxyy4609]

Español?

[@RandomAllen]

WE NEED ASTRONAUT VS CAVEMAN!!!! THIS QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED!!!

[@ahmedshamsi9737]

Redman A the mighty duck shall end them both

[@aurourus6894]

Caveman in my opinion, they were hunters and were much more suited for combat than an astronaut.

[@kraftfahrzeugfunfundfunfzi6149]

Aurourus but if battle is in space ?

[@EsamoKoram]

Why would an astronaut fight? He could make awesome fire for a caveman's meal. And why the caveman wouldn't worship the astronaut for his shiny costume and fire tricks?

[@ksubota]

and an astronaut is often a fighter pilot

[@sargothi]

I think a single Legionnaire vs anything is not really a fight. Romans trained to fight in legions not 1v1 which was why splitting the Legionnaires up in a fight was a crucial way of winning. Knights didn't quite have that "ant mentality" Romans did.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

Kind of. A legionarie isn't that much of a push over.

[@zozilin]

@@ironstarofmordian7098 I don't think that was meant to say that legionnaries were pushovers. They specialized in group fighting more than knights.

[@ironstarofmordian7098]

@@zozilin indeed.

[@64standardtrickyness]

basically all professional soldiers learned to fight in formation and the knight is no different.

[@andraslibal]

@@zozilin the way the Hungarian light cavalry archers consistently defeated heavy german knights was to feign a retreat and make them pursue and break formation, the individual knights out of formation were easy pickings for the far more agile horse archers who could harass from a distance and move in fast for the kill. So the formation of heavy cavalry charging in an organized fashion and not breaking ranks was a very important aspect.

[@mattrmsf]

I'd find it more interesting to compare Medieval tactical degradation as compared to Roman organization. Individual knight technology improved, but the greatest strength of the legion was its organization. One-on-one comparisons are superfluous, particularly since a legionary's equipment is designed to work as a group, and a knight fights as an individual, so no wonder he needs full 360 protection with plate. Medieval armies weren't totally barbarian in this fashion, they did have a good degree of command and control, but not until the Renaissance did European armies start to recapture the standardization, discipline, and doctrine of the Greco-Roman period.

[@philvalz]

...which was coincidantly a time where armour began to cover less of the body.

[@TheDeepState2001]

@@philvalz armour became obsolete

[@Gutenburg100]

Had crossbows that could pierce almost anything and then guns....lots and lots of guns.

[@BlindKid4]

@@Gutenburg100 nah crossbows cant penetrate plate armour, they have more poundage than normal bows but had smaller travel distance so the power transmitted to the arrow is the same as the bow or something.

[@naughtybear2187]

@@TheDeepState2001 armor gradually became obsolete , just because the gun was figured out doesn't mean it had the stopping power or ballistics to go through steel just yet.

[@GCurl]

It's pretty easy to determine the winner, at first the Knight would swing his longsword and the roman would block the hit with his shield. Then a ninja would appear and kill both with his Rasengan, Ninja wins...

[@guitarlearnerish]

dude WTH XD LoooL

[@antonf.9278]

The ninja watch and take notes because he is a spy

[@gravitydefeater]

Dattebayo

[@LancetFencing]

“if they used it it worked” i love this statement it’s the truest the most real the most accurate thing one could say concerning this sort of subject i love it and so happy to hear you say this,

[@GCurl]

Crazy italian cook high on tomato sauce and garlic vs Japanese cook who ate too much rotten fish?

[@dreconit6156]

Depends. Is the Crazy Italian Cook a pastamancer?

[@thatchannel195]

GermanCurl German high on beer and sausages vs Japanese cook who ate too much rotten fish?

[@jonathanmora8208]

Rotten fish?

[@crazydiamondrequiem4236]

Jonathan Mora rotten fish=early sushi

[@ottovonbismarck7646]

@@thatchannel195 the fuck you doing to get high off beer!?

[@MsJavaWolf]

Every night, when I am programming late at night and I see that you uploaded a new video I am happy. I will keep this video for later as a treat for finishing my work.

[@metatronyt]

Glad to hear that :)

[@krixxset2214]

thunbs up for ultimate comfy comment! What are you programming?

[@kkoron7908]

Legionary vs spartan (or just an ancient oplite)

[@HighAdmiral]

hoplite*

[@__MaReX__]

The Admiral [41st Omega] no the right term is oplite. English vocabulary can't comprehend the Greek one . Even by teachers it is tought as Hoplite the right term is oplite (Οπλίτης)

[@HighAdmiral]

www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=oplite&s=t www.dictionary.com/browse/hoplite

[@dflatt1783]

There where plenty of fights between hoplites and legionnaires in ancient times. It would seem the point of this would be two warriors fighting that had never faced each other.

[@thelionofjudah5318]

K Koron Spartans are probably better in 1v1 situations and romans are better in battlefield

[@Wookie120]

I have to agree. Your videos are always so informative.

[@arielnir2679]

Can you Do a video explaining " lighter" armours? Like brigandein, scale, mail, gamberson and those things? I think that kinds of armor looks cooler then both samuraj and full plate.

[@InSanic13]

Various videos about those exist on KZbin, some done by Metatron. What are you trying to find out about those armor types?

[@HighAdmiral]

"samuraj"

[@darthguilder1923]

The Admiral [41st Omega] That's what it's called when Japan colonizes India

[@louirudy670]

Ariel Nir brigandine isnt Light armor.

[@brianknezevich9894]

check thegnthrand, lindybeige, scholagladatoria, and skallagrim channels for these if you haven't found here..

[@Sebomai-b8i]

I'd be really interested in a series pitting armies from history against each other.

[@ortepus]

Easily one of my favorite videos from you! Great job Metatron! Buon Giorno from the US!

[@LarpCraft]

Thanks for the video! Will share.

[@DragonDancersVoice]

I would love to see a series that concentrates on larger scale battle tactics of various groups from a historical perspective with references. Samurai warfare in particular but other groups would be interesting as well. I love your historical content, please keep at it. Carl

[@MariusThePaladin]

I used to discuss this with other people on the internet (and saw similar discussion) and I said that late medieval knight would always win against a legionary because they're fully armored in metal plate (basically same argument as Metatron) and the Roman has never faced something like these before. But the other people said that this is not true. The Roman did fought against cataphract, which were armored in segmented metal plates from head to toe, and they manage to win (with legionnaire club and such) so they would win against a fully armored knight too. Now is that guy right or is he wrong ?

[@neutronalchemist3241]

They are right AND wrong. Yes, cataphracts (the ancient version of the heavy medieval cavalry) had never been such a threat for the legion. Mounted archers were much more dangerous. But even in medieval times we can see cavalry being beaten several times (IE at Legnano) by medieval infantry, that was nowere near to the efficiency levels of classic heavy infantries. But we are talking of individual fight on foot here, not formation fight.

[@neutralfellow9736]

Why do you keep ignoring the Roman javelin?

[@Cov1ngtonsGhOst]

It was not the "primary weapon" of the legionary. Though an essential piece of kit. Metatron is fully aware of the Pila.

[@matthewmuir8884]

Besides, the pilum is mainly for getting rid of an enemy's shield. But even early 11th century knights would still be head to toe in chain mail and gambeson even after having gotten rid of the kite shield, so it will be difficult to find a place into which the gladius can effectively thrust. Then, if we're talking about a battlefield, then most likely the knights are on horseback, and that kind of advanced shock cavalry would destroy any group of legionaries from any time of the Roman Empire. The legionaries are guys with big shields, swords and maybe one-handed spears, and shock cavalry was purpose-built to plough right through such units.

[@GuitarsRockForever]

Pilum is a valid weapon to be considered. Pilum can easily go through mail (or go through shield and then the body behind it), so if it hits in the right spot, the knight will be in trouble.

[@neutralfellow9736]

I disagree. The pilum is as much of a primary weapon of the legionary as the gladius, as they used it both for throwing and for regular spear usage. To that point, the Roman pilum can produce energy higher than the heaviest longbow shot, it is not to be ignored at shorter distances, not even by the fully plated knight, as a direct shot, if it did not skid off the plate surface, would still do blunt damage, even if it did not penetrate.

[@Weary_Panda]

ye they used pilum like a spear also.. and it has a special tip for piercing shields.. it may be able to penetrate some plate armor even..

[@jamesroper4952]

Speaking from experience, the stirrup is one of best inventions when comes to horseback riding of any kind. I grew up around horses, riding horse for pleasure, hunting, and work. There's a lot more to riding horses than people think. It's not as simple as just sitting on the horse, and putting your feet in the stirrups. The way I was taught, was to sit straight in the saddle, feet forward, toes up, heels down in the stirrups. Let me tell, it is a very effective method. Doing that, I'm able to ride, turn the horse, and horses can turn on a dime, cover difficult terrain at full gallop. Without ever coming off the horse. After a while, you get to know the horse. You can feel what horse is going to do, before he does it. It's almost like you and the horse have become one body and mind. Now that's just for doing regular ranch work. I imagine knights had the same kind of connection with their horses. A connection that was used for combat, and not work.

[@Warden_Vtel]

GAH WHY METATRON I LOVE BOTH OF THESE

[@paweandonisgawralidisdobrz2522]

Daubeny! Daubeny! Show yourself!

[@thehoundschicken1746]

*DAUBENY*

[@schwertschwinger]

The privilege of the roman is, that he can figth together with tenthousends of his kind^^

[@coryman125]

Hey Metatron! In my linguistics class yesterday, we talked about the difference between dialects and languages, and the idea of mutual intelligibility. There are a lot of grey areas (like how you said Italian and Spanish are close enough to understand, to some degree), and I think this might make for an interesting video. It covers everything from British vs American English to the different Chinese languages you mentioned recently. I realise it might make for a long video, but it's just a suggestion : )

[@GCurl]

It's also like this with Dutch - German or Swedish - Norwegian etc.

[@GrammarPaladin]

I once had a full conversation with a Portuguese man in Mexican Spanish. It was great, and we understood each other very well. I'd say Spanish and Portuguese mesh better than with Italian.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

I speak Spanish and understand Catalan even though I did not study Catalan.

[@GrammarPaladin]

Oh god, Catalan is so weird when compared to Spanish. Though they are very, very similar.

[@zachariahjudge3297]

Technology is a huge consideration. Metallurgy had developed further along even in the early Middle Ages. What do you think about adding in a factor that considers the likelihood of a weapon or armor to fail?

[@TorvusVae]

I SUGGESTED THIS ONE!

[@TorvusVae]

Sure is!

[@kuronikou2586]

Destructive Criticism And friday the 13th is the day where jason comes out... Lucky!

[@ROMANTIKILLER2]

ninja vs pirate next! XD Seriously, I really appreaciate the thought that you put into this series, these videos are interesting and entertaining.

[@Clark_808]

Another thing to point out is that neither of them would win or lose assuming that they both have pommels Nevermind the knight would still win since the gladius has no unscrewable pommel (refer to- 8:31)

[@abysspect]

It always bothers me when people talk about how "the skill of the combatant is most important" in speculative arguments like this. Of course the skill matters, but in terms of an argument, that means nothing. A roman legionary who is incredibly skilled could easily beat an idiot with a gun that they don't know how to use. For this sort of comparison to work, we need to assume that both combatants are of equal "skill" in terms of battle, and instead compare their equipment, tactics and possibly their normal fighting/living conditions. Beyond that, I do agree that an 11th or 12th century knight would have an advantage over a legionary, but that it wouldn't necessarily be a one-sided fight. I do note that you didn't really talk about the legionary's other weapons, only really focusing on the gladius. Correct me if I'm wrong, but legionaries had other tools at their disposal, didn't they? Spears, bows, javelins, ect... I know that the gladius and shield was their "go-to" weapon loadout, but it wasn't the only one they had. Just seems odd that you didn't explore other options for them considering you spoke about multiple weapons for the knight.

[@legendofloki665i9]

The knight's advanced armor would render projectile weapons less effective. I'm not going to outright say javelins wouldn't function well against the great helm, hauberk and heater shield combo, but it would be far less effective then their intended targets (barbaric tribes) who were usually without armor. As for spears and arrows, to the best of my knowledge, the Romans didn't implement spears in the same way other civilizations of the era or medieval soldiers did. Archers on the other hand was primarily by the Auxila (non-Roman auxiliary forces), and not legionaries themselves. The main problem for the Romans comes from the specialization of their equipment to fight enemies with little to no armor - their legionaries did not carry any anti armor weapons (i.e. maces, warhammers, etc.) as far as I am aware of, at least.

[@abysspect]

Thanks for the info! I'm not super well versed in ancient Roman stuff (I'm more a 15th/16th century Europe guy) so I find it kind of surprising to hear how limited a centurion's options were. Then again, I suspect at the time they had a defensive and tactical advantage which is what won them most of their fights, rather than a sheer technological advantage.

[@legendofloki665i9]

SwitchFeathers it was mostly both. The legion was exceptionally well equipped for what they had to face. Knights were simply too far removed from what they would normally face, so they didnt have anything to deal with them

[@Foxenonio]

Madonna deh! Guarda li sto metatron come cresce bene! Siamo già a 208k! L'altro ieri hai fatto il video dei 100k, tra qualche giorno ti toccherà fare quello del milione !!!

[@andremarco2413]

Could you make a video fully focused on Cavalry? This topic interests me a lot. Greetings from Brazil. :)

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

I think your conclusion makes sense. A medieval knight can kill a modern soldier, doesn't mean that he has a very high chance. I love you because you do these types of videos. Other historical channels refuse to do it, quickly saying its impossible to say. I think not, comparing their fighting style and equipment with specific terrain, we can come to a decent conclusion assuming equal skills and strength. No, none of this is definitive and we should not generalize, but it gives a good idea on who has an advantage. I'll go back to the extreme example of a modern soldier and a legionary for example. The legionary could ambush and stab a soldier and kill him. Butt he odds are lower when compared to that soldier just shooting him, and comparatively more stealthy movement. On less extreme examples, we can simple come to a conclusion of a "very close fight but if X uses Y weapon, X has a slight edge." is still better than "Nope, not going to discuss at all."

[@lordcastellan4735]

Would a Roman using the Pilum or plumbata make a difference in this fight? As you know a legionary would be carrying 2 pilum or a number of plumbata. I would think that plumbata might give the Roman a chance against an opponent with only melee weapons.

[@TheCsel]

depends on the knights equipment. the pilum might disable the knight's shield, im not sure how well it would damage mail if it struck, but it would hurt. A frankish knight would probably lose in that case, a bit later knight with full mail head-to-toe would have a decent chance, a plate armoured knight would win.

[@stevenleslie8557]

The only way a legionnaire would have a chance is to have a swinging weapon to inflict trama and penetrate armor. Such a weapon would be a dolabra.

[@grindin5694]

Ive only been watching Metatron for like a year now but I love when YT recommends me these older videos, like little hidden golden nuggets lol

[@Caesar2k1]

I really like this series so far and I would like to see an army vs army series done too. Have you ever considered doing ship vs ship series where you take ships from ancient and medieval times and compare them as far combat capabilities go

[@ZidVault]

Wouldn't this be a bit similar to that time the legionnaires fought the gallic warriors who were wearing a 'full suit of armour'? The ones on which the cruppelarius gladiator was based? The legionnaires managed to win using axes and pickaxes to get through the armour right?

[@aurourus6894]

That's called adapting. In a duel like the one presented in the video neither of them would know who they are gonna be fighting or if they are gonna fight at all but yes blunt force from axes would kill knight inside of their armor. The knight would still most likely win because even with heavier weapons the legionary is at a big disadvantage.

[@Raz.C]

Dear Metatron Skallgrim did some tests that showed a one-handed spear strike and some one-handed swords could effectively penetrate riveted mail armour. I believe it was also padded underneath, but can't be 100% certain on that point. I was pretty stunned to see it happen, but there it is. It can happen.

[@elbasso7504]

i d say in a duel a lot is decided by personal skill, agility, strength and intelligence. though the knight is definitely in advantage because in my opinion the roman soldier is usually a group fighter, fighting in a formation while the knight trained duels a lot, so in most fights the knight would win, like lets say 80% or even more

[@MedievalGenie]

How about looking further into the study of HEMA and historical techniques, to give an idea of how historical warriors REALLY fought. It's be fantastic to watch presented by the Metatron!

[@TheFiendofOndar]

How does the metal of the time factor into this? was the metal quality similar or would the knights mail also be made of a stronger material?

[@a1kjlarson]

I have to agree with you. As a student of history, I think that the Knight would have one more advantage over the Roman. I found that soldiers inherently study previous generations of soldiers. The Knight having some knowledge of the Roman Legionnaire and their fighting styles would have a substantial tactical advantage. While the Roman Legionnaire would be entering into an unknown combatant. If we look to history with a more open eye, the transition from Legionnaire to Knights is hallmark by two premier factors. The 1st being a sizable increase in blunt force trauma and better armor defenses. If we follow on the next significant evolution is from melee combat to ranged combat as gunpowder changed everything. The advent of guns did not change the formations of Armies as rifleman were still in rank and file up until WWI when the first squad level tactics began emerging to once again change the face of battle.

[@ColtDouglasMusic]

I do agree with you. Also, really good video! I enjoy these VS videos you do. I make my own as you know, but I just am not as good a speaker as you so I'm often to quite and do not speak in a way people find very captivating. However, my next 'VS' video is gonna kick ass! Haha.

[@N1t3Owl]

You are on fire dude, love your content!

[@tasatort9778]

As you say, much depends on the skill level of the individuals; but one thing that is being overlooked is the fact that Legionary arms and armor are designed around close formation troop tactics and not really suited to a one on one duel. Not saying that the Legionaries gear would be useless, just that he would be at a large disadvantage outside of a formation. Medieval knights were not trained in close formation combat and their gear reflects that, leaving much less of the knights body exposed. Knights also had much more training in one on one combat than the average Miles would have had. All this is of course just my opinion and can be completely wrong; but I feel like it's not too far off the mark. As usual, another thought and discussion provoking video. If you keep making them, I'll keep watching them. Well done!

[@patrickbrennan1317]

TAsatorT makes sense

[@LancetFencing]

nice! as always well done

[@ioannestheiberian3955]

Lets have a cohort of 2nd/3rd century Legionaries vs a the same amount of 13th century dismounted knights. Does that change from the one on one duel?

[@majan6267]

knights became superfluous when the early modern state slowly emerged and for the first time in centuries *large* organized armies of footsoldiers could be mustered, like there were in roman times, knights didn't stand a chance they were just too expensive and thus too few (and don't you dare blame it all on fire weapons, those had surprisingly little to do with the downfall of the knights)

[@KowboyUSA]

Have you explored legionary soldier footwear (caligae)? Was there one style or type? Varying styles or types for differing terrain and climates and/or eras?

[@TapDog96]

I do love your content, definitely becoming a patron when I'm not a student XD

[@sambeck2510]

Legionary vs Knight. Setting - A Kitty Pool Filled With Baby Oil Attire - Nothing. Weapons - Whatever They Can Improvise What now? Who wins?

[@edi9892]

I bet that knights are far better trained in the arts of boxing and wrestling.

[@aurourus6894]

I would say the knight. They were trained from childhood unlike a legionary and unarmed martial arts must have improved over a thousand years for sure.

[@edi9892]

Aurourus I wouldn't say that boxing and wrestling improved that much over the last 2000 years. However for legionaries there was no point learning those skills.

[@duchessskye4072]

Boi that pfp is lit

[@14USMA]

I think think naked oil wrestling was probably a much more common and popular pastime for Romans in all honesty.

[@gourmand3]

Speaking of medieval romans... could you make some videos of the late Eastern Roman Empire? How effective was their military? How different was their style of dress, taste in food, way if life in general, compared to ancient, Latin Rome

[@jsmoothd654]

Do Viking vs Legionary

[@aurourus6894]

Vikings were not professional warriors like knight, samurai and legionaries and because of that their martial arts prowess could range from inept to master, their equipment would also vary, a Viking could be either a farmer, trader or a soldier, mercenary. But if we take a Viking mercenary will the best armor of that time and the best weapons i would say that the Viking would win because as Metatron said a Gladius would have a very hard time penetrating mail armor.

[@jsmoothd654]

Yeah I know, I'm talking a late Viking age Jarl with the best equipment and training

[@lars9925]

Or the Viking dies of one of the two pila that the legionary throws at him, even before it goes into the close combat at all.

[@jsmoothd654]

He just blocks or dodges

[@LordBenjaminSalt]

Yeah, Vikings normally used shields, and the experienced/competent ones will be used to using it to block incoming projectiles. In fact it would be pretty damn easy for him since usually he'd be taking cover from arrows, which are faster, and lower ranged.

[@lorgaraurelian1480]

Hello Metatron. Thank you for the video. Could you, plz, make a video comparing a Roman centurion and a British sergeant(of 100-year war, or contemporary pre-gunpowder early Renaissance Italian officer). Promotion requirements; service status; duties(official and unofficial); superior and subordinate officers; salary; retirement conditions; social status(in antique and feudal societies respectfully). No direct one-on-one duels plz.

[@MaxSluiman]

The comparison is unfair. (though very interesting) Or better: its not a good question. Why? The Roman is medium armoured, to make him mobile. He can wear his equipment the whole day and march in it. And he is quickly combat ready. The knight is only fully protected after a lengthy preperation. He is not combat ready during the strategical march. So the legionary is less proteced, but able to strike at moments that is opportune to him. And, this is tipical in comparison between Roman and medieval armies, the Roman equipment in general was developed to support field sustainability. So the single night, without servants, would be cold, wet, hungry, slow and unprepared after a week searching for the legionary. The legionary was trained and equiped to sustain himself in the field. In fact, a lot of battles in history, are won and lost, not because of superior armor or fighting skills of one army, but because of an armies capability of being at the right time at the right moment in fit shape. Caesar was exeptionally good at this and would not fight until his opponent was exhausted.

[@MaxSluiman]

Sorry, 'night' must be 'knight'. I have my battles with autocorrect. 😅

[@14USMA]

I beg differ about the effectiveness of a gladius vs. Mail. My reenactment group uses extremely high quality, period accurate riveted mail and we have inadvertently broken through links before during full contact choreographed fights with both gladius and 1st century Celtic javelins (and yes, there is lots of bleeding when that happens).

[@DrStein-oh7mq]

Hi Metatron, i would like to ask you if you could pls make a video on why is czech so similar to latin? Maybe its just my opinion - im native czech speaker, i can also speak english and somewat fluent french, so i dont have many languages to compare latin to, but it seems that pronounciation is almost the same (except C, witch is always pronounced as :c: not :k:), we also have cases like in latin, but only seven of them, on the other hand we have different vocabluary, like all slavic languages. i would be able to help you with your research if you needed to.

[@MrEmiosk]

hmm... I have to say its more complicated than that, and how you portray the fighting. The knights armour would be a problem to get by, but ring mail while really good, is not THAT good to piercing strikes. But a legionaries sword would not be optimal for such a task. The biggest advantage of the roman would be his helmet, as its open faced. In a competition of endurance the roman would have a better chance as the knights great helm is ill suited for close combat, really good protection but in terms of how much good air and the limited field of vision granted by his helm would prove a disadvantage. In many cases of knights with great helms and other wise helms with visors that can be opened tends to open/remove the helmet just to get more air and greater vision (most knights also has a mail hood and or a steel cap on top of their padding.In addition the roman would be at a disadvantage if he can't keep the knight at a distance, the knight would look to get in close, really close, so close that he is practically hugging the roman to deliver false-edge strikes to his back and venerable limbs. In SCA heavy fighting we call them wraps as they... well wraps around people, think of it as if you whip your weapon around, letting for the most part the weapons own momentum to carry the strike.But as I have said, I think the fight would come down to the romans skill at keeping the knight away and at HIS optimal distance and position, and his greater advantage in his open faced helm(one that relies completely on what helm the knight chooses to have/rely on). It would also depend a lot on what shoes the knight has as they as well as his knees would be prime targets for the roman to use his shield on.

[@1forge2rulethemall88]

Btw you said at some point that the stirrup aided in heavy cavalry (in lancing people). Shad did a video on this correcting himself explaining it was more the shaping of later saddles that allowed the heavy impacts seen in jousting and warfare. The stirrup helped mostly in getting on and staying on the horse.

[@GrimoireOfJank]

welp this was well done, as usual!

[@sylvanstrength7520]

I definitely think you are right. Technological advantages are definitely not to be overlooked.

[@STzim]

Would be pretty interesting if you increase the numbers. A centurio vs a group of knights or even a legion against something equivalent. Heavy well disciplined infantry against heavy cavallery.

[@alejandrovasallohernandez7447]

Just imagine if roman empire could have advanced to medieval times with the military technology, it would have been an invincible army

[@dreconit6156]

Look up the Byzantine Empire.

[@wgefgsh]

The best slinger vs a terrible archer. Can you explain why a yumi how is so big when they only use the bottom h1\3 of the string? Thank you.

[@theorganizer1273]

Have you tried Spartan Hoplites or the Theban Sacred Band vs The Holy Trinity of Medieval Warriors (aka Knights, Samurai and Vikings)

[@perfectibility999]

How about a Roman army of the 1st century vs. an English army of the 13th century? Even with all the advances in armor and cavalry, would the Romans still win through better discipline/complexity of maneuvers, more advanced missile weapons, and perhaps larger numbers (if Roman armies of the 1st century were larger than the armies England could muster in the 13th)?

[@legendofloki665i9]

I don't see an answer to the heavy shock cavalry. It moves too fast, and strikes too hard if you have no means of dealing with it. In Rome's entire history, there had never been anything even remotely similar to that.

[@user-ve8ry1xw8v]

Gustavo Larancia caltrrops are a middle ages invention. and archery wise the Romans would be out classed.

[@HughMungus11]

Gustavo Larancia He said *A* roman army not *THE* roman army

[@matthewmiller9485]

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, knight vs Spartan, the ULTIMATE heavyweight pre-gunpowder warrior duel! The fabric of the universe itself can barely contain the awesomeness!!!

[@teosorin]

Question: would the typical maile armor reach all the way down to the thighs? A stab to the femoral artery with a gladius would probably be lethal and, although not an easy target, it's possibly a better alternative compared to trying to get through the knight's maile. That being said, I have no idea how viable of a strategy that'd be.

[@RevRaptor898]

i.pinimg.com/736x/df/f4/cc/dff4cc8d67ee93b69ea454607d44cc2c--medieval-knight-medieval-armor.jpg They would look something like this

[@AskAScreenwriter]

The first thing I thought of on this video, and the Samurai vs Legionary video as well, is the philosophy behind each style of combat. It's my understanding that the idea behind most Samurai and Knights is to fight as an individual, whereas the entire point of the Legionary (even down to the name itself), is to fight as part of a well-coordinated group. One-on-one, the Samurai and Knight would have an advantage, but everything about the Legionary, from the shield, armor, weaponry, training, etc. is to fight as part of a cohesive unit acting as much like one entity as possible, including moving together on a battlefield while engaged with the enemy. I'm sure this is overly-broad, but I think it holds in general. Your thoughts?

[@legendofloki665i9]

While I don't know much on Samurai warfare, to the best of my knowledge, the knights also fought in formations. Knights or men-at-arms fought both as parts of cavalry charge aimed to split the enemy ranks like a wedge (they weren't yolo-ing it like you often see in movies). And on foot, again - to the best of my knowledge, they fought in formation within a shield wall. In open battle, lone wolves were dead men. I can only assume the Samurai also had some tactics superior to the '1v1 me bro' as well.

[@AskAScreenwriter]

I think some of that comes down to the definitions. In feudal Japan, there would have been a difference between the Samurai and the Ashigaru, in Medieval Europe between Knights and "common soldiers," with part of the difference in both cases being social class as much as skill in combat. During relatively peaceful periods, both Knights and Samurai often focused on honing their abilities in contests and tournaments, but those were usually individual events. In both regions, as I understand it, advances in technology limited the combat effectiveness of such highly-skilled warriors in actual battles.

[@legendofloki665i9]

As far as I know, knights and men-at-arms were considered synonymous in the early medieval period, and the association of the word knight with nobility was the reason why the two later came to represent two different things. However, I should also add that men-at-arms and common foot soldiers of the medieval armies were not the same thing in any way. Think of them as the elite soldiers - they were well equipped and well trained, as opposed to the common foot soldier conscripted by his feudal lord. As for the possibility of advances of technology limiting knight/samurai effectiveness in actual battles... I would disagree, especially on the part of the samurai who embraced the new technologies readily, as far as I remember Metatron stating in his videos. They faded away because the technology removed the difference between them and the ashigaru. It was a similar thing for the knights, where eventually armor became significantly less effective vs rifles (it wasn't by any means useless as some believe though). It became a better strategy to equip your common foot solders with rifles in large numbers instead (not to mention cheaper). On the other hand, I don't know much about the early medieval tournaments (and as I've said in the previous post, I know very little about the samurai), however I do remember the early tournaments were far less structured than the iconic later period jousting. To the best of my knowledge, they were less displays of individual skills and glory seeking, and more of miniature mock battles.

[@scottblank5678]

In the game Killing Floor 2, a character you can play as, named Tom Banner, wears medival armor as his outfit. Would you say that the armor he wears is his armor is historically accurate? (Exclude the flashlight, that's on the outfit of every playable character.)

[@davidbriggs264]

When speaking of this topic, I cannot help but bring up Science Fiction Author Harry Turtledove's series "A Legion of Videssos". In that book (and follow up books) which he takes part of a Roman Legion from Julius Caesar's campaign against the Gauls in what is today France, and transports it (via magical means) to another planet, where they have the same basic technology as the later Byzantine Empire had, which was roughly the same as the Battle of Hastings, a little bit earlier in time then what you talked about, but not by that much, and have the Romans fight the natives in numerous battles.

[@SicMetalMaggot4life]

My question to Metatron would be this: using what was available at the time, could you make a Roman equivalent of a full suit of plate armour? If so, what would it look like? It certainly seems like a lot of the components already existed at the time.

[@noscope7809]

Bro have you heard of cataphracts

[@danielgorog2646]

Of course a knight vs legionary duel is obvious. But they were not primarly expected to fight one on one, but in bigger battles. But can you describe a battle between legions (Augustus age) against knights (15th century) equipped from the same funds?

[@Original_Dalvik]

Thought the knight would have a non armoured part under the arm where foot soldiers would pull them down from the horse and stab them there

[@aurourus6894]

If someone is on the ground then it's better to stab them in the face but yes, there are openings in the crotch, armpits and the crotch that can be stabbed but it's way easier to knock a knight down and stab him in the face because they have been trained all their life to defend those spots.

[@gawaineross4656]

I have a medical background. A heavy mace would break limbs despite armor, and an ax would penetrate almost anything. Even if gambeson armor could resist an ax blow, the PSI force directed at such a narrow vector would cause internal injuries, certainly to a limb or extremity.

[@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO]

A side point but didn't the Roman calvary consist partly of legionaries as well? Or are the equi not legionari?

[@atheon8367]

What would be if the knight would use a helebarde?

[@Cov1ngtonsGhOst]

Knights would not have such a weapon in the 12th century. The closest thing would probably be a bardiche. Also, knights didn't use halberds, that was a weapon used in a phalanx formation, while the knights usually fought mounted. When dismounted, they would use a type of pole axe or hammer.

[@matthewmuir8884]

How do you think Romans would have adapted to the presence of knights, if the Empire had still existed? What do you think they could have done to give their legionaries more of a fighting chance against knights?

[@TheCsel]

more armor, more ballista, maces and picks. Or revert back to macedonian-style pike formations. Still though, if we are talking armies a legion would be better match due to discipline and tactics than a 1 vs 1 fight. The knight army would have much more trouble against an actual shield wall.

[@matthewmuir8884]

I am talking about armies, and, to that end, I am also allowing cavalry in this hypothetical scenario.

[@legendofloki665i9]

Had Rome encountered a medieval kingdom, they would adapt by turning legionaries into men-at-arms/knights. It's what they've done throughout their history - if they see someone doing something better than them, they'd copy and improve on that aspect. So you'd start to see the Hamata evolve into more of a Hauberk, and would add heavy shock cavalry to their army.

[@arx3516]

they would employ knight cavalry tactics for their cavalry , but also have heavy infantry. If they still existed in medieval times their lsoldiers wouldn't look different from medieval soldiers, the only difference ould be that in this medieval empire every soldier i equipped ith the best weapons and armor available. Just imagine, the huge economy of the roman empire coupled with the technological advances of the late medieval times, heavy infantry made of pikemen all wearing full plate suits, heavy cavalry made entirely of knights, and also armored crossbowmen. It's what the HRE always dreamed to be.

[@artoruvidal2793]

More horses

[@davidm8135]

Your next armor should be a full suit of Maximilian plate armor

[@Lostinthoughttt]

Late upload but gonna watch anyway

[@koosh138]

I do agree that the knight has a huge advantage. However, armed with a club or mace, the knight may not fair much better. The scutum is too big an object to get around. The bearded axe would be the changing factor, in my opinion. This would enable the knight to hook the top of the shield and open the legionary for deadly attack. The axe might have been the reason Scandinavians had a relatively easy time fighting Saxons and Franks. Similarly the billhook would do the same.

[@ZaBrowski]

Wow its was actually a 30 second video. Pretty good

[@BloodyCrow__]

Why didn't lorica hamata ever have sleeves that go to the wrist? Doubt that was impossible with their technology.

[@mojo-hand4539]

Matatron - could you please do a video about Roman Knighthood? What was it exactly, and how did it differ from medieval Knighthood?

[@arx3516]

What about a late empire legionary (armed ith spear, oval shield and spatha) vs a battle of Hastings era norman knight?

[@Scout887]

But in a formation fight, wouldn't the throwing pila stop the knights cav-charge? The first horses collapse and forming an obstacle for the horses behind them and this slowing down the charge? And i think the flail would be better against shielded legionary since it would reach head or shoulders wheras the warhammer would just smash the shield. If just the gauls would have thought that and equipped their troops with shields and 1-handed flails. And the second very efficient weapons against legionary in their tight formation and large wooden shields would be the use of nafta, it was known in medieval times but i don't know if it was so common for knights, in medieval 2 total war, there are just ottomans and arabic factons using it.

[@michelguevara151]

30 seconds in. ok, thanks Raphi. like. look for next video. lorica hamata is very similar to 11-12th centuary hauberk, then it's down to weapons and tactics. the armour of a medieval knight would very well have a gambeson underneath too.

[@exploatores]

if we are talking about a battle and units I think we almost have to get one of Arthur Wellesleys brigade with Rifles, artillery and cavallery attatched to be shure of winning.

[@lkvideos7181]

Hm, a legionare in segmentata with arm protection, scutum and gladius vs a late medieval knight in full plate without a shield but just a longsword or polearm ..... Can you elaborate why its automaticaly a win for the knight ? the Roman is specificaly trained to stab his enemy and seing a man in full plate, he will aim for the gaps aka armpit, leg, groin etc while having good protection with his shield. It seems more likely that the knight wins maybe the majority of fights, but auto ? doesn't seem right assassment.

[@SevenDayGaming]

I do disagree somewhat that a blunt weapon would really be better than a piercing one for defeating mail. Unless the lorica hamata is much less padded than medieval mail, it would still dramatically reduce the damage of a blunt impact. Unless you're intending to knock them upside the head, then of course a bludgeon would be an excellent choice.

[@gwennblei]

Hello ! Great video but I think I disagree on a few points here. First off, though I'm clearly biased towards the knight, we have to give the legionary a bit more chances. A knight on foot would probably not wear his great helm, it's terrible for sight and you can only see down and a bit in front of you, it's really made for mounted combat. So either he'd fight with an open face and mail coif, which is better for the roman in therm of gaps, or he fights with the helm but has terrible vision which would be pretty useful for the legionary, and allow him to outmaneuver the knight, with simple side steps for exemple. Then onto the knight's weaponry. First off, if we're talking twelfth century knight, he has no war hammer. This was a weapon developed alongside plate which wasn't used before.Then for a mace it's a bit the same story, they were only starting to get used again in the twelfth century, so it's possible, but not very likely. Sword, axe and spears are more obvious choices. If you read this Metatron, on the length of fighting in armor, you could check the "combat des trente" (fight of the thirty), a fight between 30 breton knights and squires of the French Party against 30 bretons and english knights and squires of the english party (and one German "adventurer" as he's described in the sources). It's not full plate at it's peak yet but the high status of the fighters lets us imagine they have at least excellent armor and partial plate.The account tells us the fight went on for 2 hours before the fighters took a break, and then starts again, but I haven't found the duration after that. Also shows a quite low casualty rate as expected :)

[@martialme84]

3:27 Dont believe the hype around the stirrup. The saddle takes much much more of the impact, than the stirrups do. I ride horses myself and i always get the feeling that the "stirrup, rah rah!" was made up by historians who don´t ride themselves... Also: check out what dr. capwell says about their developement of saddles for jousting. I´m sure you know he is an active jouster.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Joust on a racing sulky.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

I too go with the knight, but it's a narrow one. Greathelm is protective, but it's not really made for foot fight. The field of vision is very narrow, and the knight will have an hard time in seeing what's happening below the shoulder of the enemy. More, the kinght had to end it quickly, otherwise the higher weight of the armor, the heat and the difficulty of breathing into the greathelm will take their toll.

[@DreamMarko]

Would you like to talk about Greco-Roman wars?

[@YeS1711]

or maybe a video comparing Triarii vs contemporary greek hoplite? Or is that too similar?....

[@Battle_Brother-e3v]

How is stronger the late Roman Army or the Imperial Army?

[@bellator11]

The Roman gladius is very acutely pointed though, and since the Roman trained most in thrusting I'd say that there's a very good chance he could penetrate mail, and if not the thrust would probably be powerful enough to cause injury.

[@jimbombadill]

how good was romans on one to one combat? i sometimes get the impression that they quiet often lost if their formations broke for some reason

[@LumenP1023]

you think the Romans won EVERY battle by staying in tight, well rehearsed and organized formations ALL time time? You think the romans are the exception when it comes to plans surviving contact with the enemy? you think you can build an empire that survives a thousand years this way? No, it doesn't add up. If you think the Roman Legion is useless if they can't bring their formations to bear, then I've got news for you. The Legionnaire can fight, and he's very good at it. He's fought with the skill and experience that was imparted upon him by his instructors, who have come from many decades of war, and many dozens of cultures. The idea that a Legionnaire would keel over and die when facing an opponent out of formation is just absurd.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

A bec de corbin or a war hammer. That is a little bit later, but doesn't seem like a technology that a 13th century weapon smith couldn't make, if asked. I feel like bashing the scutum until it is near useless except the boss, while letting your superior mail take most of the legionaries attacks, would work well. Get rid of the scutum, the Roman is gonna lose. Even if that doesn't work, the beak of the war hammer could almost certainly pierce the legionary helm. Little bit of blunt force, little bit of armor piercing seems the best bet to me. The only advantage the legionary might have that I can think of is a difference in training. Legionaries likely would have been trained to be a bit more adaptive, needing to fight many different kinds of military and tactics depending on where they were stationed. Knights were likely trained more specifically for fighting as heavy cavalry, against mostly the same army make up as their own forces.

[@damuni1]

Can you do a similar series where you talk about battles instead of single combat?

[@YeS1711]

What about a video discussing legionnaire versus persian immortal?

[@kevinnorwood8782]

Hey Metatron, here's a "Who Would Win?" question I've really wanted to know. This one I REALLY hope you'll investigate, because there's a chance that these two warriors actually DID meet: African Zulu Warrior vs African Zande (Azande) Warrior.

[@TheCsel]

Zulu warrior vs Aztec Warrior Vs Maori Warrior

[@GrizzlyHansen]

Hey Metatron(or anyone else), a bit of off topic comment, but I'm about to write a book about Tomoe Gozen in it, part of it takes place in her time, are there any books, articles, or documentaries that I should use as part of my research?