Ways Medieval Armor Was More Dangerous Than Wearing Nothing DEBUNKED

[@metatronyt]

Install Mech Arena for Free 🤖 IOS/ANDROID: clcr.me/Metatron_Ma22 and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

[@dravenocklost4253]

Hey bud, I appreciate your hard efforts to stand up for TRUTH Also if you moved to the USA try and go to a gun range for some bangs and funs :P

[@deeznutz7064]

What is the name of the knight helmet that had vertical eye slits that were attached to the open visor? I can't find the name of the helmet on google

[@Master_Yoda1990]

It can be argued that we still use breast plate armor through plate carriers, it's just modified from the contemporary plate armor we're used to seeing to reduce weight.

[@kelluke.]

@@deeznutz7064 barbute.

[@The_Gallowglass]

I've been hit hard to the point where a mild steel helmet dented and I'm pretty sure I got a concussion. I think if I didn't have the helmet I would have been at the hospital.

[@him050]

The point about armour increasing the chances of concussion and internal bleeding actually made me laugh out loud. “It’s alright sir, I took my helmet off so I wouldn’t get a concussion.... Why’s half of my skull caved in?”

[@byletheisner5006]

That is a clear example of something technically right but deceitfully told with the aim to support a certain incorrect claim. "An helm increase the chances of concussion!" "Yeah, this is thanks to its protective properities, because without it you will be simply dead".

[@GeraltofRivia22]

@@byletheisner5006 great example of that from WW1. When the British sent out metal helmets to their soldiers, the number of head injuries dramatically increased. But the fatalities dropped.

[@wicky7591]

Can't feel a concussion if you are dead.

[@LoisoPondohva]

@@GeraltofRivia22 survivor bias at its finest.

[@john-paulsilke893]

I work in construction and when wearing a helmet, (my jobs don’t usually need them or require them) I am more likely to hurt my neck from helmet strikes on low doors and the like. However I have definitely had my life saved from a dropped piece of rebar striking my head like a spear while wearing a helmet. I was hurt but not significantly. I ALWAYS choose a helmet when there are overhead workers in spite of the higher likelihood of a neck injury.

[@SamBrockmann]

It honestly blows my mind that someone would hold the opinion that, from basically 700 AD to 1500 AD, people would be so dumb as to not realize that "Wearing armor gets me killed more easily". What I mean is, people clearly were NOT that dumb. People were actually quite smart, and their armor designs were quite ingenious considering the technology of the time and the availability of metals. Wearing armor in the Middle Ages had the potential to save your life.

[@wolfoflight]

There is a modern perception among some people that the people of old were ignorant savages, and that all progress came from a small selection of individuals who were ahead of their time.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

I think people were actually smarter back then. Stupid people didn't survive.

[@kaltaron1284]

@@huntclanhunt9697 There have been arguments that it was the constant warfare in splintered Europe that allowed them to raise to the top of the world eventually. More stable regions like China simply didn't see the need.

[@SamBrockmann]

@@wolfoflight , that doesn't actually excuse this kind of illogical thought.

[@tacticianAlexandra]

Yeah I think this comes from the idea that people in the past were dumb. Using the same line of logic you sometimes see for video games, that oh yeah it old so it must be bad. When reality is far from different. Since well the whole point of armor is to keep you safe. If it was dangerous to wear and failed at it job to keep you safe. I think they would of made better armor, since surely someone would of notice oh hey. Bob died while wearing this armor from a single blow from a rusty dagger. Maybe we should buy our armor from a better smith next time, right jim? Jim jim leave the body alone, he dead Jim. For the whole reason humans use tools in the first place, is to make their job easier, not harder. For even the dumbest of folk, would notice oh hey this armor is not working, witnessing the downsides of it over and over again. Making them find something better or improve on the design in some way. For humans tend to be good at adapting. I honestly think someone has watched to many hollywood movies if they think armor is totally worthless.

[@merpius]

WeirdHistory, probably: "An M1 Abrams would not be effective on a medieval battlefield because enough bodies of pesants and horses would eventually jam up the road wheels and immobilize it. Also the bodies that piled up because of the machine guns would eventually block their vision, thereby making them less effective."

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

No, just no. If this video is making medieval people stupid, that comment is made to make modern people look stupid. People with no understanding of how a tank works, fights and actually operates.

[@antonmayr6412]

@@leonpeters-malone3054 r/woosh

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

@@antonmayr6412 To the original comment about a M1 in medieval times. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jaPNqJSnj8udf7s

[@jeffwarren8667]

It was sarcasm, my friend.

[@Zathaghil]

@@leonpeters-malone3054 uhh... this is exactly why he says that that is probably what the makers of the video Metatron just debunked would believe. Not he himself. As is evident from what he actually wrote. 🤦‍♂️ Can't people actually read anymore? Atleast once before posting? /woooosh indeed

[@noahdoyle6780]

Basic premise I've learned to keep in mind as I study history: OUR ANCESTORS WEREN'T STUPID.

[@JamesRDavenport]

I believe the mantra of the Internet Age is "we are infinitely smarter than our ancient ancestors could ever hope to be, let's take a moment to laugh at them!" Nevermind we are all here because some Medieval person we're personally related to survived. I could actually make the counter argument, Modern People are the dumbest willingly ignorant generation in human history. Compared to the massive amounts of information we all have access to via technology, and what our ancestors would do just to learn something new, we today are the lazy ones!

[@LordVader1094]

@@JamesRDavenport Also most people today don't have even half the practical skills every medieval peasant would've had.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

They may be less knowledgeable but definitely not stupid.

[@JamesRDavenport]

@@chengkuoklee5734 Well, yes and no. Earlier people didn't have the opportunity to acquire as much universal knowledge as we can ( portable archives in our pockets) but they certainly were LIGHT years ahead of most of us in practical environment knowledge. Your average Medieval person could grow their own food, repair stuff themselves, wring the necks off live animals without bating an eye, and could read local animals' sign/tracking. Not to mention probable combat experience via mandatory service in the levy. Meanwhile, We know how to order takeout/home repairs from apps and do yoga.

[@SpacedoutSpoon]

@@JamesRDavenport We know how to operate advance machinery, how to read and do at the very least simple algebra, we know finances(most of us) etc etc etc. Modern humans are the same as the ones 800 years ago, we just specialize in different skills because modern society demands it. I mean even just typing an essay and understanding how to read it is lightyears beyond the average medieval peasant.

[@stevenkobb156]

Boy, those guys were nuts. "Armour can protect you but it can't protect you." They love to hedge their bets. They also like to use anecdotes, often false ones, to try and prove global statements. So if one person is skilled or lucky enough to exploit a weak point in a knight's armour, all armour is bad because it has weaknesses. As Metatron says, without armour, our whole bodies are weak points. Their video makes no sense.

[@tacticianAlexandra]

Yeah it better to have fewer weak points, than to have everything be a weak point. Which even if armor does have a weak point, well that can have a upside. Since hey if the enemy tries to go after that weak spot, it can make it easy to defend from it. For knowledge is power. That and I doubt any fighter being aware of the weak points in their armor, would make it easy for their foe to use that against them, if they are someone like a well trained professional knight.

[@richardmh1987]

Is like they think that some guy wearing regular clothes wielding a knife will just jump to try to grap an extensively trained guy wearing full set of armor wielding a lance, mace, sword, etc., and kill him fairly easily just like that when in fact that would pretty much be suicidal. I think that would only work if the knight was alone and restrained somehow like in an ambush or rendered unconscius, otherwise good luck with that.

[@exantiuse497]

I think their point with the "you can get stabbed in the eye or groin" part was that it is somehow worse to get stabbed in the eye than in the stomach for example. By wearing armor you make your opponent attempt to stab you specifically in the tender parts instead of somewhere else and therefore armor is bad. It's an asinine statement, since wouldn't you rather increase the likelihood of not getting stabbed in the first place, but there is SOME measure of logic there after all

[@nikhilsinha7730]

i mean I'd rather be forced onto the ground and have somebody struggle to stab me through a narrow gap rather than getting hit on the back by a sword and die

[@64standardtrickyness]

This is also the argument that the Great wall was useless btw.

[@kevinhernandezretana2170]

The fact that there are 6000+ likes on that vid is really telling. Such a shame that YT removed the dislike button - makes misinformation more easily accepted by the average Joe.

[@JustGrowingUp84]

As of now, they have 4.2k dislikes. What's funny to me is that Shad's video has considerable more views. Usually the situation is reversed. I'm happy the historical community is starting to make a change here. Same with that Sci Show episode about Damascus Steel, which they have taken down after a well deserved backlash, both in the comments and from youtubers, especially from Shad.

[@AICW]

@@JustGrowingUp84 How do you see the dislikes?

[@JustGrowingUp84]

@@AICW A browser extension called: Return KZbin Dislike

[@Dejawolfs]

no worries, this vid is gonna get 6000+ likes in no time flat.

[@robinthrush9672]

@@Dejawolfs Has over 6k now with 32 dislikes 3/21/2022

[@captiantoasty940]

"They can grapple you and go for the weak parts with a rondell dagger" As opposed to being grappled unarmoured, and your attacker having an entire banquet of vital organs to stab... By the gods; why do some folk think that protective measures that aren't 100% effective are completely useless?!

[@JoeMartinez18]

Maybe they think armour is like movie armor

[@BigPuddin]

Stupidity.

[@kaptenlemper]

They probably think that the only effective form of armor is airtight steel casket.

[@biglc034]

Hell, why even grapple an unarmored foe. Just slash, stab, or smash their unprotected body with your pole-arm or sword while wearing your own armor.

[@theblackbaron4119]

@@biglc034 Exactly, if he's unarmoured why bother getting close and get in stabbing distance when you have a massive range advantage with a pole arm.

[@kellerblair2952]

Yeah I always thought taking a Dane axe to the chest would be much more pleasant with no padding.

[@Dejawolfs]

i've personally taken a dane axe with plate armour and only padded armour. i can tell you i prefer the plate armour :P even had a full 2-handed swing straight to the head. without the helmet i would be dead. with the helmet i barely even got a mild concussion.

[@jermsmason2082]

@Leo the Anglo-Eastasian tis just a flesh wound!

[@leterrierdinari2861]

Depending on how you are hit, it will probably hurt for a shorter period of time if you have no protection... because you'd die quickly

[@cheesestyx945]

@@leterrierdinari2861 "Yeah if I got hit in the head with a massive blow that'd really hurt and suck better to just die." - Guys at weird history

[@ArcanisUrriah]

"Ah, but wearing armour will tire you out, and you will be defeated by those not wearing armour!" No you won't, because they won't really be in a position to take advantage of your extra fatigue as they will be dead from not wearing armour.

[@hellacoorinna9995]

And you trained from 10-12 to fight in armour.

[@threebythestreet]

"You could get stabbed between the plates" - seriously? This is supposed to make the armor more dangerous than fighting without it? Of course you could get stabbed between plates. But the problem is, without armor you can get stabbed all over your body! This is just silly.

[@DeadMeat991]

They are the kind people that say: '' Car seatbelts are not safe because you might still die from injuries.''

[@alexanderthegreat6682]

Well now they HAVE to stab you in a lethal spot

[@nicklab1927]

Yep. And the guy wearing armor knows where the weak spots are, maybe he even trained for a long time specifically to defend these target areas...

[@threebythestreet]

@@nicklab1927 Good point!

[@georgeprchal3924]

Yeah it seems worse to be hit in the head with a blunt weapon without a helm than with one.

[@matthewconner7800]

As I said on Shad’s video, regarding the helmet’s vision restriction, saying that you’d be better off without a helmet because it restricts your vision is like saying that a modern soldier is better off not using night vision at all, due to the field of view through them being just 40-50 degrees. And, for reference, the small field of view with modern night vision gear is mitigated by simply doing a lot more full-head movement visual sweeps, to keep situational awareness at its highest. But then, these people think the medieval population were morons, and couldn’t possibly have thought to simply do a lot of head movement to compensate.

[@Vulgarth1]

Modern night vision doesn't even have that drawback anymore. The latest four-camera pieces give you a great range of vision, I was lucky enough to try on a surplus pair at an Airsoft event.

[@matthewconner7800]

@@Vulgarth1 Quads are still a bit uncommon, most units in use are duals. And real GPNVGs are REALLY expensive. Even the Chinese quads on the market are almost double the cost of decent duals. I’ve never seen used US GPNVGs for sale, and only know one guy who owns a set. I will have the chance to check his out, alongside another friend with the Chinese unit, in a week and a half, though. All of that digresses from the point, though. No way is full peripheral but no NV preferable to a 40-50 degree view where you can see in the dark. The other point, about adaptation of techniques to mitigate the poor field of view, also stands.

[@TrueMentorGuidingMoonlight]

The other thing about helmet vision was that not all helmets were designed with the same aperture, and some even had movable visors that you could slide up for better view. Context absolutely mattered for how your helmet was designed, and what you would do while wearing it. I’ve seen jousting helmets like the classic frog helmet have a narrower eyeslit presumably for better eye/face protection from lances. I’ve seen the classic German sallet & bevor setup from Matt Easton, presumably an infantry kit, and it had a wider eyeslit compared to the frog helmet. I’ve even learned that if your helmet had a movable visor, you would’ve only kept it down when you were in the thick of combat, and pulled it up if you were not fighting (sounds intuitive, I think). Or maybe you were on a horse and needed the ability to breathe and see better as you cut down infantry with your cavalry sword. There are so many reasons why you could and would have still worn a helmet while training yourself to overcome the hindrances associated with it. There was no reason to go with a naked head unless you were poor.

[@badfoody]

Why the hell would we care about what you said on another comment?

[@JamesRDavenport]

That yes sir, and also perhaps using helmets like that more for shock charges when your buddies riding knee to knee are your periphery protection. Then you remove that bad boy for the inner helmet when the fighting is more close in or just lift the visor. It's not complicated. Why do they not get this?

[@TheSpongyMallard]

The whole video is just, "If you wore armor, you could still get hurt." Yes, but if I wore none or less, my likelihood of getting hurt worse, killed is higher. I would much rather get hurt and survive than just die. What is this video even trying to prove?

[@exantiuse497]

It's like saying that wearing a winter coat in the winter is worse than wearing nothing, because if it's -50 degrees you'll be cold even if you have a coat

[@theblackbaron4119]

It's like the whole seatbelts and airbags argument over and over. They aren't a guarantee to survive a car crash, but they statistically increase the odds that it is more likely to survive with than without.

[@alexanderthegreat6682]

Ah yes, I'm not going to wear armor because I don't want a bruise. What do you mean my internal bleeding is now external bleeding? Where'd my liver go?

[@psychokinrazalon]

Clickbait, probably.

[@AntonioCunningham]

I love this community. It's a breath of fresh air to see content creators speak favorably about others within their community. (Even when they have disagreements)

[@mazdrpan4099]

Guns didnt cancel armor in sense that it became ineffective, it was more to do with armor of sufficient quality being too expensive to produce for the 17th and 18th century armies that numbered in hundreds of thousands. Elite units such as cuirassiers heavy cavalry and winged hussars continued to carry quality breastplates all the way through the napoleonic era. Modern soldiers started wearing helmets to protect from shrapnel. Explosive shells werent common on the battlefield until late 19th century. We can see infantry helmets becoming common during 2nd Franco Prussian war of 1870.-71. and cuirassiers were still present on both sides in that conflict.

[@timesthree5757]

Yes gun did. But not in the way people think. As the power of fire arms increased the amount of armor decreased but did not end. Even the American Civil war chest armor was used but it was only rated to stop revolvers. The use of armor is coming back because of better, lighter materials.

[@timesthree5757]

Also the modern metal helmets were used to protect from head injuries in the trenches not so much shrapnel. If you were close enough to get shrapnel from a shell you were probably dead anyway.

[@mazdrpan4099]

@@timesthree5757 Youre right shouldve pointed out it was meant to protect from shrapnel and debris coming from above.

[@timesthree5757]

@@mazdrpan4099 that is correct most of the head injuries came from the splash effect. When the landed and exploded ir would throw up debris. Well, that debris had to come back down.

[@Llortnerof]

@@timesthree5757 Actually, they didn't, at least not for the first few centuries. Even European guns predate the development of full plate armour by at least 2-3 decades. So it's more that this armour was developed in part to defeat guns, rather than the other way around. In other words, for quite some time after guns debuted, armour actually _increased._

[@garrick3727]

Other Weird History claims: 1. Don't wear a hard hat because if a brick falls on your head it might stun you. 2. Don't wear a seat belt because in a crash it might hurt your ribs. 3. Don't wear eye glasses because they obstruct your vision.

[@frankenstein6677]

I've seen the seatbelt one used unironically. Then I cited one little incident where a guy spilled his brains out after a small collision without a seatbelt.

[@IAmTheStig32]

Honestly, "armour is useless" is my pet peeve trope. It _completely_ flies in the face of history, reality and good storytelling.

[@deathdeathington]

I watched the video when it came out and left a comment to correct their mistakes that I saw. I wouldn't have noticed those mistakes if I hadn't watched a lot of your stuff and other history channels like Shadiversity and Skallagrim and Scholagladiatora.

[@waterbeauty85]

You and shadiversity are my favorite ancient weapons/armor/history channels which is funny because you always maintain your composure while shad tends to blow his top when doing debunking videos. Though your presentation styles differ, you both give very logical arguments which cite evidence (you especially) because logic without evidence can spin a convincing fantasy or lie.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Todd's Workshop not only proved that a bodkin could not penetrate a chest plate, but it was Joe Gibbs on the longbow. Joe Gibbs has a range of bows going up to something bonkers like 220 pounds. That said I think he opted for a bow a little less than the maximum on the Mary Rose at about 160 pounds.

[@shawn6860]

Hence why a 70-110 pounds (I think) was called ideal range for bow poundage.

[@bestperson1234]

They later proved it could penetrate a helmet though not long after

[@joedoe7041]

@@bestperson1234 yes. but Todd did state that the armor that was used in the test was made of high grade material, where's the helmet was of much lower grade material. there is also the fact that it had deflected a number of arrows before it was penetrated, so ether the penetration was simply a lucky shot or that part of the helmet was weak. ether way it was effective till it was penetrated, and still saved a gopro's life till the end.

[@PXCharon]

If a bodkin couldn't pierce plate, they would not have made so many of them. Nor would we find armour with square holes punched out of them. Neither armour, or anti armour measures, are 100%.

[@bestperson1234]

@@PXCharon What this guy said...

[@luisoncpp]

19:00 I used to be obese and I lost more than 40 kg in less than 2 years, I know for a fact that having a lot of extra weight well distribuited around the body doesn't affect mobility that much. I was even able to walk for about 3-4km. The most noticiable differences were going uphill or running, those 2 things were much more exhausting.

[@vinz4066]

And Knights were realy Well Trained since childhood.

[@krispalermo8133]

@@vinz4066 Men at Arms were the largest children took in and train like knights for combat, just without the noble's political training. Also base on the given time period in English history, teenage males where took in at the local abbey or castle and receive combat & social training due to all of English civil wars and invasions from the main land. Also in part to get the young rowdy teenage males out of their parents' hair for the winter. Due to the folk lore regarding Italian and Sicilian city states, the local priest would go to the house of a rowdy young teenage male, headlock them, and kick their backside all the way to the church for a proper caning. Then came the next four months of military training, if they don't learn some self discipline in that time in following training orders and social behavior they just get caned the whole time by their sparing partners. Don't forget Italian/Sicilian had to deal with close to a thousand years of siege warfare from sea raiders.

[@panqueque445]

"It's true that armor protected you from arrows, but it hardly made you immune to them" I like how that's their point for why armor is useless. It didn't make you completely immune to arrows so why bother? With that logic don't wear helmets when you ride a bike or a seat belt when you drive. If it's not going to 100% protect you every single time, why even bother, right?

[@alexanderl.6207]

Its the anti vax argument

[@NemisCassander]

@@alexanderl.6207 To be blunt, the anti-vax argument has a lot more going for it than the armor one.

[@Usil-solun]

@@alexanderl.6207 Never taking it.

[@robertallan8035]

"I could theoretically die completely randomly, so I might as well walk out into traffic!"

[@Ravenfox297]

I don't know why people think that, medieval armor was supposed to protect you, not harm you! That's just dumb.

[@gravitatemortuus1080]

Armor worked. Was it perfect no. It was always an arms race where weapons or armor for a time had an advantage over the other. It's why we see armor evolve. But that said anyone arguing against armor doesn't understand why it worked, or why the best armor had layers including padding.

[@mryellow6918]

The title should have been armour isn't as invincible as you think.

[@LordVader1094]

@@mryellow6918 Although tbh given the modern perception (and depictions in media) of armour, it is likely MORE invincible than most people think.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

The only 2 times I could think of where armor night be enough of a hindrance to not use would be naval battles (in case you have to swim) and perhaps extreme temperatures where heatstroke or frostbite is a near garuntee. Even in both those scenarios though, armor can still be useful.

[@kaltaron1284]

The second one was a real danger for the crusaders. For the first one it seems like people rather took their chances drowning than wearing less armour. Might be because many people weren't exactly good swimmers and freezing to death was often as likely as drowning. Or becoming shark food in more southern waters.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

Frostbite would not be a reason not to wear armour. Particularly something like Gambeson.

[@kaltaron1284]

@@josepandreu7448 AFAIK the crusaders wore more or heavier versions. Or covered more. I have to check.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

I could see plate and mail being a huge hindrance in guerilla style warfare, but then you just replace it with lighter mail and more padded armor.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

@@josepandreu7448 That earliest iconography of the coat of plates is literally of Crusaders though. And the coat of plates is the first evidence of a full harness utilizing plate, it is not the earliest example of medieval plates being used on arms, legs, shoulders. Plate-over-mail is still using plate armor.

[@oshirockingham9655]

Firearms cancel out steel armor is a common misconception. Even the machine gunners in ww1 wore steel cuirass. Oh, and even today, we still use steel body armor as protection against rifle bullets, the AR500 steel plate. Also of course the rifle bullets I mentioned above are the standard full metal jackets be it 5.45, 5.56, or 7.62, and not the armor-piercing rounds, and not the 50BMG (but why would someone use an anti-materiel rifle to shoot personnel.) Oh and also, great video like always.

[@wallaroo1295]

*Armor didn't go away - it got bigger.* - Big enough to hold numerous knights, with the power of several thousand horses, over rough terrain, in any weather, day or night, and able to throw "lances" for miles, while hitting spot targets.

[@aidenheifner5717]

All hail the tank!

[@tentacledood5784]

I'm noticing this weird trend recently, with videos like this discussing old battlefield tech and especially with videos discussing modern militech. There seems to be this weird fascination with the idea that: Because something can be broken, that it's completely useless/obsolete. I see with armor, I see it with tanks, trucks, pretty much anything! These people will look at something be broken due to some astronomically improbable circumstance, and then deem it useless.

[@hideakiakio6698]

Yeah I noticed the same thing it's so stupid

[@_aullik]

You see the difference between you and Shad is that he lives in Australia which is in the future thus he is faster with releasing debunking videos.

[@metatronyt]

Shad is from the future :O

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

@@metatronyt I knew it! That explains everything!

[@brucetucker4847]

Everyone knows that Australia is an imaginary place. How would people live there, having to go around hanging off the earth with their hands like orangutans? Also, it it really feasible that humans could survive in place where literally EVERYTHING has lethal venom? Not to mention the drop bears. (One does wonder how many of the original colonists' last words were something like "Ooh, what a cute little snail, let me pick you up AAAAAGH!")

[@PhineasPhule]

I was involved in the SCA, and did fight as a heavy infantryman, so please believe me when I say that when it comes to medieval combat, armour is your friend.

[@rogervandusen8361]

A question one must ask oneself when thinking about body armor is; if armor was so ineffective, why did armor persist in use over such a long period? Japan quickly adopted firearms and by 1600 or so, the gun was one of the main infantry arms, but warriors, including gunners, still wore armor at every opportunity. It was not until the mass adoption of rifled muskets that the armor was restricted to ceremonial use.

[@MarcoCaprini-do3dq]

"BeCaUsE pAsT pEoPlE aRe StUpId!!!!!!!!!!"

[@fransbuijs808]

Another thing I noticed: when you see illustrations from the medieval period, they're always full of colour. When you see movies about the medieval period, everything is dark and gray. This idea of the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages still exists in Hollywood.

[@vampirecount3880]

15:15 Thats a very good point I do know quite a few instances where someone dressed in armor got killed by arrows but in every single one of them its told the guy got shot while his visor was up...

[@bobito8997]

Notice how, to illustrate the point about daggers being used to stab through the gaps in armour, they use a picture of two men in full armour wrestling. Good luck getting close enough to a guy in full armour wielding a longsword to stab them with a dagger if you're wearing none yourself.

[@Parktrizzle]

These guys are ridiculous. "Men with swords, bows, axes, and daggers, are coming to kill you." "Nah bruh, I don't want to get a concussion. I'll just dodge."

[@omegatired]

OK, I have not worn armor. However, as a member of the SCA, I have helped people into theirs and I watched a guy land on the top of his head while wearing a helmet, well constructed and padded and while he later showed up to the DnD game apologizing for missing fighter practice, he was otherwise fine. Yeah, concussed himself, but did not break his neck, which we were worried about when he went over ... I still have the late spousal unit's first helmet. Very sturdy. Not probably historically accurate So this vid is just wonderful! (Oh, yeah, this was back in the early 80s, they'd probably have rules in place by now for taking someone who did that to the ER today)

[@richardmh1987]

I think is just as a football helmet. Of course heat threated steel is way harder than plastic shell, but what I mean is that it has a lot of padding beneath. Your head never touches the actual helmet. And of course it restricts your hearing and vision to some degree, but thinking you would be safer without it is just nuts.

[@Señor-Donjusticia]

In other news, Castles were actually completely pointless because you could be starved out in a siege anyway, using a password for your computer is even more risky because hackers could still breach it, and wearing a seatbelt COULD strangle you!

[@kaltaron1284]

Don't forget an airbag killing you.

[@Señor-Donjusticia]

@@kaltaron1284 BAN THOSE THINGS!

[@kaltaron1284]

@@Señor-Donjusticia We should also ban direction indicators. Nobody uses them anyways and aren't surprises more fun?

[@skroowi8105]

Life in the middle ages, according to WeirdHistory... Blacksmith: Hey I made you a suit of armor. Knight: Will it protect me? Blacksmith: No, but it'll make you look cool. Knight: Shut up and take my money.

[@TheOldBlackShuckyDog]

Is it not fair to say a lot of iconography (at least sometimes) showed archers shooting at point blank range because it made most effective use of the space which was being painted on?

[@1three7]

God I love your channel. I wish truth and accuracy was more popular and mainstream, but hey, at least we have channels like yours.

[@metatronyt]

Thanks!

[@discipleofsound4565]

As someone who makes and fights in armour for fun, I can tell you know: if someone is trying to hit me, I'd rather wear armour. Even without padding, a well made piece of plate armour can almost nullify a strike completely. In the case of lamellar, it'll definitely hurt more, but will probably still save your life.

[@kiteofdark]

This was so much more enjoyable to watch than another youtubers reply. No scoffing, no pretentiousness. No "well, I GUESS I'll give you that one." Just unbaised facts and information.

[@1D991]

I'm so glad your videos exist, especially as today I spent a while arguing about the Vikings and their armour with somebody who has obviously learned their history from the History Channel show.

[@jfobel2204]

The term 'Bulletproof' came from smiths which tested their armor against bullets, shot it, and the armor stopped the bullet. Note, bullet. IE: Rifled round, not a musket ball.

[@WhatIfBrigade]

Regarding helmet peripheral vision, in combat you'd fight in formation and depend on your comrades to defend your left and your right. It is true the individual was vulnerable, which was why tactics of that period stressed tight formations fighting in sync. Extremely important to note that an enemy who is behind you in a formation has their back to every one of your allies who is behind you!

[@JV-km9xk]

14:29 Legit, I thought he was going to talk about the bow could hurt you more than the arrow at that point

[@enoughothis]

I love to see this whole community swing into action when a dumb somebody says something stupid.

[@richardsanchez9190]

Hell yeah I loved shads response we got metatrons now we need skalls and the trifecta will be complete

[@ctrlaltdebug]

Ways medieval armor was more dangerous than wearing nothing at all: 1. You could drop it on your toe. 2. Maille could snag your hair when putting it on. 3. You could get pinched in the joints. 4. The extra weight could hurt your back 5. More strain on the knees 6. The visor could drop down at an inopportune time

[@mcscientistface4047]

Watching Shad's and Metatron's reactions back to back was priceless. Metatron: These guys were wrong here, here and here" Shad: * confused screaming * Love both of them xD

[@krankarvolund7771]

"Wearing armor will tire you, and give your opponents an advantage" In long battles, yes. But if my opponent don't wear an armor, the battle will be very short :p

[@scrappydoo7887]

It's always a good day when Metatron decides to take some time away from his lovely newly wed to give us some content 👍👌

[@MrRabiddogg]

Presumably a modern football helmet is somewhat similar in dynamics to a Medieval helmet. I remember back during my days playing football, that the coach mentioned the point of the Football helmet was to deflect blunt contact strikes to the head by spreading out the force. I would assume the Medieval helmet, when it came to a blunt weapon did the same thing. Someone hit you with a mace, the force went through the helmet rather than just to that single point thus making it less force at the point of impact, negating its deadliness.

[@anonfaceless6088]

The great debunking has happened again. Love to see it. As a amateur historian myself. I love that there are content creators who won't stand for these lies. Keep up the good work Metatron

[@TheLiberalNerd]

1. If you fall in a river 2. If you fall in a lake 3. If you fall into an ocean 4. If you fall into a swimming pool 5. If you fall into a pond 6. If you fall into a water reservoir 7. If you fall into a large body of water, that isn't covered by 1-6

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

I've tried to put a good modern dagger (Tod Cutler) through 6mm ID, densely woven riveted mail. I managed a couple of times, but it took everything I had and only went deep enough to be a superficial wound. It's doable, but it seems to me that even if you manage to get to a gap, getting through the mail then is no easy task.

[@morriganmhor5078]

And did you have gambeson or something like under that mail?

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

@@morriganmhor5078 yep. Not highly padded but suitable stand in for an arming garment. Two layers of medium weight linen and two layers of pretty heavy canvas.

[@morriganmhor5078]

@@corrugatedcavalier5266 Thanks.

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

Of course. I have my own channel and filmed it in two parts if you care to see. Also do some armored fighting and other swords stuff. No pressure and I won't direct link on Rafaello's channel because that's just a bit too much haha.

[@hellacoorinna9995]

Plus maile, plus gambeson. 😏

[@broseffman]

You know a seatbelt can trap you in a burning car, so you better never wear a seatbelt.

[@TheCassual]

Hey metatron, you should rate the armors and weapons in Elden Ring, it'd be a fun cheeky video rating video game arms and armor using real life standards (while obviously still acknowledging it's only a video game)

[@peterszeug308]

22:19 Steel cuirasses were brought back in WW1 on the German side when steel had become much harder than it was when armour was initially abandoned. This reinvention was one of those ingenuities which demanded overwhelming numbers to defeat in the trenches. Plate armour is like a crossbow, old-fashioned with limited utility in most cases, but not obsolete at all.

[@alexanderthegreat6682]

The storm troopers were the first ones or main users of these chestplates, right?

[@peterszeug308]

@@alexanderthegreat6682 Yes. Soldiers equipped with heavy machine guns or flame throwers wore such armour. They had to expose themselves quite a bit to use their weapons but were also useless if they couldn't tank some bullets. Similar purpose to British female version tanks of WW1 which also only carried machine guns and no cannons.

[@Adam_okaay]

"the trick is having enough strength to penetrate the armour." Wow! It's so simple! If only more medieval soldiers thought of that!

[@rsacchi100]

Thanks for giving detailed information about the lunacy of the claim. I remember reading where Ottoman chroniclers gave accounts of crusader foot soldiers who had been struck by multiple arrows, yet still attacking, apparently uninjured.

[@silverhand9965]

I guess armour does make you more likely to be injured after a mace strike or a lance charge Without the armour you're skipping the hospital and going straight to the graveyard

[@LeonidasSparta-Fun-History]

I was so shocked when I first saw the original video. A channel with 3 million subscribers could produce a video with such misinformation. Great job on the debunking!

[@McDiezel079]

This would be like someone 500 years from now saying infantry body armor is useless because it weighed up to 30lbs (on par with steel armor) and it only protected the torso so the enemy can just shoot them in the head

[@secularnevrosis]

Many don't understand why the bows still were a good weapon, despite not being able to penetrate good armour. In Agincourt they forced the French knights to advance all the way to the English lines with visors down, head bent (to avoid a "lucky" arrow or splinters from arrows getting into the eyes) and arms tucked in. The sound of thousands of arrows hitting the lines would have made it hard to hear commands. That meant that the French knights would arrive at the English line exhausted and in less orderly fashion than otherwise.

[@jessehall9816]

I love these debunking video's, some of my favorites

[@ladybug591]

Thanks for the info. The section explaining how the distribution of the weight of the armour made it possible to move around reasonably easily cleared up that question in my mind. I used to think that they must have been very physically strong to even walk around and that being mounted was necessary. The ingenious design and workmanship of the armour you show us makes me realize how important an armourer, as well as blacksmiths, must have been in the course of history - I can almost visualize the way they would all have to get together discussing every minute detail and problem and coming up with the answer over time. Enjoyed it very much. Regards to all.

[@baronvonboomboom4349]

Another amazing video Raff. I checked at the classy comment, remembering my fb comment. One weird and possibly common situation where wearing armour could be detrimental is if you are captured. The knight in armour is worth more then the surf with a helmet.

[@metatronyt]

It would actually be your life insurance. Capture him because he is noble, so he is worth a ransom, don’t kill him. I’d take that

[@ShadesApeDJansu]

When i saw Weird history video i knew Metatron would make video and a possible debunk, and here it is. I have myself had to correct Weird History when they stated C.Lee fought at Winter War in Finland when C.Lee himself has stated that his Brit volunteer group was turned back cause they not know how to ski, C.Lee described the journey more as an "school trip" than a War

[@Philipp.of.Swabia]

When I saw the video, I instantly thought about your older video about the article on the net with the same title xD.

[@theworldofcronis]

Me too, also said that while commenting Shad's response

[@stormiewutzke4190]

Considering that people paid a lot of money to wear armor when their life was on the line it kinda says that it helped. And now that modern military is again wearing armor it really puts it into context.

[@andreascj73]

The armour probably disappeared with the advent of state sponsored armies. Putting armour on professional armies became too expensive and too time consuming. The states needed troops fast, and they needed reinforcements even faster. With the introduction of easily mass produced guns, they got the means to raise competent battle ready armies fast, but they didn't have the funds or the time to produce armour for each individual. So I think the armour disappeared when the feudal society - where a vassal had to provide his own soldiers - evolved into the modern era of the late 17th century and later. Now the number of troops have decreased somewhat and have become the expensive part of armed forces, it is worth equipping them with body armour once again, and our guns are far more effective that the guns of the many previous eras.

[@maxstirner6143]

Laughs in curraiser. Armours were always used. You can discuss that the number of armoured troops did went down during the 17-18cent, the mobility century, but it never disappeared at all

[@andreascj73]

@@maxstirner6143 Cuirassier - yes (for the user of a cuirass). It doesn't defeat my argument. It underlines it. The number of heavy cavalry was also on the decline, and the states spent better resources on infantry or even mounted infantry (dragoons). Armour ofc never disappeared completely. They reintroduced the helmet during WW1. The cuirassier went in and out of use several times during the 18th og 19th century. So did the helmets. But I would still claim that there is a significant difference between full battle armour of the Gendame of France and then the Cuirassiers of France who wore only a front and backplate (cuirass).

[@simpsondr12]

I'll also point out that even some "Cuirassiers" stopped using cuirasses. (Prussians for example) armor declined for many reasons, muskets became pretty powerful, it became more expensive and time consuming to make compared to the firearms it needed to stop, armies became exponentially larger, and you're right there was a change from regiments raised by officers who equipped them, to bring raised by the nation. I would also suspect that Cuirasses and especially helmets were designed more to protect from melee weapons, glances from musket balls less than dead on hits, and from pistol balls.

[@die1mayer]

The Holy Roman Empire mass produced armour in industrial scale for its massive armies during the Thirty Years War. Early muskets weren't all that powerful or accurate.

[@I_do_go_down]

„Becouse of guns armor became absolete” *laughts in Hussar*

[@mekingtiger9095]

Hussars were... a very specific situation.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

I am willing to bet "most" medieval battles were a huge mix of men fighting in formation, and men who started in formation but simply couldn't keep cohesion through combat because so, SO many were levees. This is probably less true starting with the mid-13th or so, maybe even slightly earlier, but from 500 to at LEAST the era of the Norman conquests, I can imagine large portions of medieval battles turning into much more chaotic, generalized melee than straight formation fighting. Still nowhere near what Hollywood depicts though, it would be men TRYING to stay in formation and just not being good at it.

[@rileyernst9086]

Well because cohesion means mutual protection i can imagine the side that loses cohesion dies first.

[@Nick-hi9gx]

@@rileyernst9086 usually the case, yes, but "cohesion" isn't binary, it is on a continuum. It is when you lose too much cohesion that a break tends to happen.

[@PartTimeGoblinSlayer]

One could argue that wearing armor in medieval combat is like wearing a plate carrier or a gas mask in modern combat. Plate carriers don't cover everything but they do protect your vitals which significantly increases your survival chances. Wearing a gas mask is hot, sweaty, uncomfortable and limits your field of view. But if you don't have it on when you get gassed all those things will be the least of your problems.

[@mekingtiger9095]

But early plate carriers ARE sort of impractical when compared opposed to medieval armor. Or at least they were until a couple years ago, but that's an EXTREMELY recent development. Early plates didn't offer THAT good protection and were quite heavy and cumbersome for the amount of protection they added. And that was in the 1990's and 2000's. Don't mixture modern armor against guns with medieval armor against its contemporary weapons. They faced entirely different realities st their time periods. Even though we made enormous achievements with recent developments in mettalurgy and composite material sciences, we are still a long way to go until we can make something on the level of battlefield effectiveness and practicality as the plate suits of the Middle Ages, be it body armour or vehicle armour.

[@benjamincarlson6994]

Skallagrim also has a few videos where he takes firearms of various eras vs. one particular steel helmet, and the flintlock pistols did not penetrate. It wasn't by any means perfectly scientific, but it is an interesting video, and showcases that it isn't as simple as "fire stick make armor go brrrrrr"

[@RedPandaGod01]

In Japan they had different grades of armor, the best of witch Tameshi Gusoku were individually tested to be bullet proof at close range (probably not point-blank) and were prized by warlords, they could often be recognized by the preexisting bullet marks. Then fast forward to world War 1 where plate armor was still surprising common with with many who could get their hands on it using it, with people using centuries old armor that still functioned to stop bullets, and you had focus like the Arditi who where famous for their effective use of armor, who used both old and new armor as they had avaliable, some of witch made them near unkillable to common arms from the front, a common tactic of the Arditi was to storm enemy trenches with nothing but their armor, a knife, and optional hand grenade, where once they got in the trenches they were virtually immune to the attacks, knives allowed them to capitalize on the limited space in the trenches where larger weapons would be impractical, well defenders would often be forced to fight them with pistols and knives and other small arms, that could not penetrate their armor, making them some of the most feared soldiers of their time. The whole guns make armor erelvent is a myth, additionally plate protects from shrapnel and glancing shots, even when unable to stop bullets directly.

[@ravenlord4]

If a volcano erupted and a river of lava were headed our way, I would sure pity those poor bastards in full plate as I ran away in my Errol Flynn tights.

[@alexanderthegreat6682]

Don't need to outrun the lava, just the guy in full plate

[@mikeoxlong1395]

@@alexanderthegreat6682 I don't think that's how lava works, mate.

[@chrisb7528]

Most militaries still wear plate armor it's making a huge comeback that's one of reasons US is going back to more powerful cartridges.

[@mekingtiger9095]

That's an EXTREMELY recent development, though. Modern body armor as we know it started to make some return in the 1990's and 2000's and only accelerated in thoughness for real in the 2010's.

[@rockoorbe2002]

I knew you would talk about this. Yes, there's definitely risks and inconveniences associated with armor just like with condoms, but I'd rather wear both and avoid either a herpes sore or a mace to the head. Coming to think about it, both are sores to the head, if you catch my drift. 😉

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

Two out of three ain’t bad bro. Wear your helmet.

[@GeraltofRivia22]

Don't associate with women who can give you herpes

[@schucky12]

You and Shad need to do another collaboration, maybe on the topic of decline of steel armor in the as you mention. I think you both have great ways of explaining out your subjects and am a big fan of both.

[@lowkeyarki7091]

Ah yes cause having a concussion is worse than dying on the spot.

[@brentchesson2179]

Well said. I'd rather have my bell rung than have my skull caved in.

[@tramonte]

"The plates are still an encumbrance" then they proceed to show MONTY PYTHON 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@MasterGFTB]

Imagine people in the next 500 years claiming that Tanks were useless in combat because of the fact that Ukrainians blew Russian tanks up with Javelins.

[@mekingtiger9095]

I mean, loads of people even now claim that, so that's not a big stretch to think that. Specially if firepower continues to have the edge over armour, which is the sole entire reason why the myth that "medieval armor was useless" even exists in the first place.

[@DarkTemplarKain]

Knights: i love wearing armor because it's useless -said no knight EVER!

[@Lycan3303]

shadiversity response video was excellent

[@dutch_asocialite]

This reminds me of that one comment thread where a guy tried claiming clone armour was completely useless because all clones visibly die when hit, even though being killed and being incapacitated look visually similar and clone armour actually does a good job of dispersing blaster bolts.

[@bolieve603]

Id be interested in a video about the heaviest military kits in history. I've heard that the kit of English soldiers at the start of the 19th century weighed over 100lbs. And unlike knights they frequently didn't have any baggage animals or servants

[@BladeValant546]

From my understanding, the real thing about armor vs gun was the introduction of smokeless powder, which increased the velocity and power of rounds. Even still we still use armor today that can stop rounds.

[@Joe___R]

Just because mideval armor wasn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't vastly better than none at all.

[@AdblockWillWin7853]

Guns cancel out armor... said the guy in the video being debunked. As he said that, I looked over at my level 3 ballistic steel plate which is capable of stopping most calibers of handgun/rifle rounds up to .308. Armor never really fell out of fashion or use. It evolved as warfare conditions, technology, and weaponry evolved. Helmets, flak jackets, ballistic steel plates, Kevlar, you name it; they are all armor. If you think about it, tanks and such can also be considered armor. Mobile armor. It's a common tactic in more modern-ish warfare for infantry to use tanks as cover as they advance on positions. Hence why tanks sometimes have radios on their rears. Let us also not forget various items that people wouldn't normally consider armor, such as earplugs, gas masks, UV resistant goggles/glasses, and so on. Perhaps not armor in the traditional sense, but they serve the same purpose: protecting the wearer from particular conditions/weapons.

[@ColossalSwordFormAndTechnique]

Next video,”Why ar500 armor is more dangerous than wearing nothing against bullets”.

[@dnaseb9214]

You really have to be smooth brained to think the armor was useless and everyone was wearing it because they liked giving their enemies a advantage.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Guns did cancel armor, but not tacitcally rather logistically, it was simply not efficient to have 4 times fewer troops so that they could each have armor the metal was better off used making more guns.

[@rockyblacksmith]

Most troops on a battlefield never wore metal armor (other than helmets perhaps), that would have been way too expensive for the common soldier. Mercinaries may have been the exeption, but overall, full plate was always only for those who could afford it. Armor did stick around until the Napoleonic Era in some forms, particularly with cavalry, so it definetly was worth its use in some contexts. And remember: Firearms introduce their own logistical headaches.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@rockyblacksmith "Most troops on a battlefield never wore metal armor (other than helmets perhaps), that would have been way too expensive for the common soldier." What period are you talking about, because as an universal that is not true. "Firearms introduce their own logistical headaches." Yes your army now needs a constant suply of amunition. But its worth it you strike unparyable strikes from distrance, and drilling a musketeer takes 14 days, while training an archer takes years.

[@rockyblacksmith]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 "What period are you talking about, because as an universal that is not true." Not so much period but rather type of army. If you can show me evidence of levied (or otherwise comprised of non-professional soldiery) armies in any period of european history being predominantly armored, I'll happily stand corrected when I see it.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@rockyblacksmith Very well, classical greek armies. Hoplites are common people and being soldiers is not their primary duty. I also wonder why you ask for non professional.

[@rockyblacksmith]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 1. You are talking about the impact guns had on warfare and then turn to classical Greece for an example? Even if it were correct, it would be be absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making. 2.While yes, the hoplites weren't professionals, the were a SMALL subset of the population as they had to be land-owning citizens in order to be abled to afford the equipment of a heavy foot soldier. And Greek armies weren't just comprised of hoplites. 3. Whether all hoplite body armor was made of metal is, to my understanding, still a hotly debated matter.

[@matyastaller159]

I must say I really appreciate the civil and calm way in which you tear your victims apart. I mean, the expletive-ridden, expressive, funny critique common on YT is fine any day of the week for me, but this is something else. Bravo!

[@threebythestreet]

What i find funny is that when he is talking about guns ending armor he shows a wheel lock cavalry pistol which here not that great at piercing armor endless it was touching the plate. In fact they invented a specilized kind of fire arm called the musket just for piecing armor.

[@colbunkmust]

Muskets wouldn't even penetrate 17th century or later hardened breastplates. The term "bullet proof" refers to testing armor against guns, where the bullet impression is the "proof" that it is tough enough.

[@maxlutz3674]

Steel body armour was still used in WW I. They certainly had powerful guns by then. So less plate armour is likely a result of different tactics that did not work well with a full suit of armour.

[@colbunkmust]

@@maxlutz3674 This is correct, but the counter-sniper plates were so heavy they could only be used from static positions and I believe they were only used by the Germans and in limited numbers. Very specialized equipment. Of course, who needs bullet proof body armor when you have a Mark V tank.

[@threebythestreet]

@@maxlutz3674 Thank you. Also when they started giving all the soilders uniforms they did not have enough money to give them all suits of plate armor.

[@threebythestreet]

@@colbunkmust Thank you!

[@MidanMagistrate]

"A Tank will not increase your odds of survival, as an opponent could shoot through the barrel and blow you up as is seen in historical movies such as Saving Private Ryan"

[@easyalpha1]

Tanks have engines though to do the work. A suit of armor for a person will start getting heavy after hours in combat.

[@tomjue5128]

Decline in armor has more to do with economics where there are more uses for steel and blacksmith jobs are disappearing

[@slaughturion1089]

An interesting debate I took part in, on Reddit, about Guns vs Armor. I was in the 'Armor was generally pretty effective for a long while after the adoptions of guns' camp. My opponent's attack was, "High quality armor could stop muskets, but the average armor was basically completely ineffective against muskets." My rebuttal? "If you are going on 'average' armor, you have to use 'average' guns too, and muskets had just as much variance in quality as armor, so crappy armor still is very effective against crappy gun." But, for some reason, he was unwilling to concede that point, only high quality muskets ever existed. So, yeah, a piece of equipment that is fairly simple, but has been used by, I think over 1000 years at that point, could not be mass produced more effectively, than a relatively new, way more complex piece of equipment that has only been used for a couple hundred years at that point.

[@Señor-Donjusticia]

No see, they were absolutely right about their statement of weight. A full suit of armor COULD weigh 100 lbs, just like how a sword COULD theoretically be 10 feet long, or how a pig COULD fly if it were launched out of a catapult! Semantics people! They are important.