thank you

Thankyou. Very interesting

thank you, that means a lot

@@airnt For real, there's so much nonsense on this platform, and so many 'influential' voices that have no idea what they're talking about that it's refreshing to have long form content like this coming from someone who has both the academic knowledge and the carefully considered experiential knowledge to bring this kind of information to the public.

@@KnyghtErrant i hope to have a few more contributions as i will not be allowed to work quite as much in the coming months. are there specific subjects that are of interest that i might be able to cover?

i am working on it, the main solution turned out not to work, the plan B kinda did. the whole reason not to use the tripod was the hard wired connection to the microphone and not being able to get enough distance

yes, though there are a fair few extant, even, though a lot are not the priority to display, so people don' t know them.

thank you, especially given just how ad hoc and random this recording was just to test a mic

You're so welcome!

thank you, my old friend, see what you did getting me into riding! see what you did now! ;)

1) i have no good data, more is the pitty 2) mail is widely used from the 13th century straight through to the 15th. (probably before). The caparisons are often lined in mail, as we see in art, or shorter mail bards, as well as smaller sections. In the outremer chronicle depictions we still see them in the 1470s, In 1214 we see that they repeatedly say the horses could not be hurt by arrows and 'wicked knives' 'in their flanks' This was as they were 'well covered' though they do not specificslly say mail

I still need something for ridden videos, because this is plugged straight into my phone

it is really challenging to make as the prop depertment often is seperate from the horse suppliers, so fitting it is a serious amount of effort and cost for a production. so unless specifically wanted it is a very large expense per horse. Probably for a production their actual layout is much higher than the retail value of the armour itself. i would imagine that it would be dozens of thousands per piece.

the animal spewing the tail is a commonly seen thing. also there is a depiction of a sun with a face covering the whole crupper and the tail streaming out of its' prominent nose thre is an extant saddle with writting elegantly on the cantle: 'im arsche ists finster' (in the arse it is dark) so this kind of humour is very much part of it.

it is by far more common to not protect the throat, throat protections with lames and scales were designed, for sure, but they were pretty uncommon. the typical weapons of the time would not often have a good shot to the throat anyway. a killing shot with an arrow or a gunshot , for instance, would have to hit the top half of the neck (like how streif was shot) and that is actually covered. the actual neck covering is often left off anyway, only wearing peytral and shaffron, for instance, is pretty common as it covers the frontal arc and this is by far the most important and a lot easier to use. also this particular horse i might not want to pile too much weight on.

the cataaphract coverage is probably slightly more extensive, the weight probably higher, the defensive strength probably a little less thick. the later armoures are more frontally optimised and the cathaphracts a little more side on for arrows. scale armour is easier to 'slap' onto a horse adn get it to fit, though it might be less pprotection per weight per cm2 of coverage. most archery in history is, however, not of the very most powerfull possible, which is more exceptional. We know of a few dauntingly strong bows like in florida agaainst conquistadores, and so forth, but most warbows aare not extremely powerful, just merely stout. this kind of threat means you can have more coverage rather than a centralised investment like the frontal 4 mm thick parts of peytrals designed to plunge headlong into pikeblocks.

yes it is a very good question. The fitting is key so that the piaces more or less lay reliably and are also designed to allow all exercises the horse might throw at you. This last point is perhaps ignored a lot. A terre-à-terre or even a courbette might happy suddenly and unexpectedly. hence the plates are designed for that. It is really a breastcollar out of steel, really. The shaffron and crinet i have much more experience with, and this cn be a huge problem if not done right. The amount of padding needed is really very small, in fact it can cause more problems than it is worth. the inside of the armour is really quite smooth and thereby it is covered mostly to provide a surface that slips the appropriate amount on the fur an does not sit too harshly on the bony protrusions like the tip of the pelvis. the inch or so of horse fur does help the matter as well, i suppose. a major concern are the edges, as mentioned. did you see the video i posted about it moving on the horse?

@@airnt I am about watching it. I think this is really the only way to find out how the strapping was really done. It is one thing putting something on a stiff statue. I do not want to knock on museum archeologists in any way, but I think sometimes they do take the complex movement into account when fitting the pieces to the horse statue. I know the pure movement puts heavy loads on leather straps and even steel. Also, if done wrong, it can chafer the horse badly, which is not wanted in normal use and of course not in the field. I always hoped Dr. Capwell would attempt such a project, so I am very happy that you are experimenting with your immense experience. I enjoy that so much, even if I cannot be near horses for longer periods of time any longer due to health reasons (heavy asthma).

@@SandraOrtmann1976 Toby and myself actually cooperated on this project, hence the set up in the wallace has changed on the basis of my recommendation

@@airnt That's great! Maybe we will see the new setup soon?

so heavy armoured lancers were still fielded in large numbers in the first half of the 17th c. The winged Hussaria went on a while after that. te horse bard is a bit of a different story. horse protection is well established in 1214 like at the battle of bouvines, where the horses resistance to arrows and 'wicked knives' is mentioned. it is however not that clear if thiss was just cloth (i think unllikely) full mail bards , or something different like horn plate lined caparisons. mail bards seem the most likely aand those are depicted over the year here and there. Often these were still covered by a cloth caparison, hence we might not always notice them. This seems to be the norm until the 14th century when more and more peytrals start showing up. Shaffrons are widely used from the 14th century onwards. The thing is that although they are around, they are only really used in predictable prepared pitched battles. so they aaare famously used in 1424 at Verneuil where the Italian cavalry charges into the english arcchers and the hits on the armour cannot stop them (so hits are repelled, not just that they didn't hit them much due to movement, the effectiveness of the armour is explicitly mentioned)

well there is no saddle yet. the horse mannequin has a steel frame that has an attachment for the wooden rider skeleton. A saddle would need to allow for a frame for the armour to stand on itself. (hence there are originals in museum with holes cut right through them)

haha, interesting. a wild boar does not quite bring its front legs as high as the horse, so it is easier. also boar have natural armour under teh skin in the form of cartilage plates. A proper 'Keiler' is also not stepping under as far under the body with its' hindlegs, (hence a young boar is known as an 'überläufer' as they still track up with their hindlegs in their frontlegs' footprints, whereas mature boar don't. In a way they walk a bit more like a bull than like a horse. Also as there are no boar that are as large as a horse for real, it is easier as teh animal would not be actually hurt by getting it ever so slightly wrong. costs are kind of hard to tell. This was a trade for 5 years of cooperation, so no money really changed hands. I think it could be anything from 3000€ upwards but very much depending on quality. The head and neck might be the most faffy.

@@airnt To be fair what I’m talking about is purposely breeding for that are the size of horses. I don’t think the gait will change though. But yes the idea is to essentially get them to the size of actual horses

@@charlottewalnut3118 a lot of the restrictions for mount-armour are how they move, like a bull you could make it slightly different, more covering at the front, similarly a boar is aalready very armoured. From the front boar occasaionally shake off bullet hits to the skull, but aalso they have plates around their shoulders it does mean they walk head down and with a lot less shoulder movement, so the armour could allow to hang down more, but might rely more on the crinet and teh shaffron. I think the main issue is gatting the boar to allow you to measure them boar are very fast and very quick to turn, but run much more front leg heavy, much like a bull in that regard.

@@airnt The lucky thing is pigs are very smart if it knows it will be fed to stay still and be measured it will most likely do so or I can do so while the beast sleeps

i have mixed up my pocket watch with my monocle. but dropping your pocketwatch does not have the same expression as dropping your monocle

i should ask, it was a prize. I won it as the chivalry prize at the tournament of Sankt Wendel in 2012

@@airnt Ahh I see, thanks for the reply. If you do find out would you mind letting me know? It's gorgeous. Also if you don't mind me asking who made the harness at 35:38 and the one sitting atop the horse as well? Thanks

as per historical weights. the armour for the horse is 20 kg (or 22 with the taildragon) and the armour for the man is just over 25. that puts it at 58 lbs? (i will check again, as i was going by my spreadsheet for packing for flights) Pietro monte already describes that German armour by the end of the fifteenth century is the 'lighter' version, but he prefers it over the Italian armours that are way heavier (and have potentially more flappy and heavier mail set ups as well) A lot of weight sits in the mail set up, this is about as light as a comprehensive mail protection can get. I suppose i could wear a full shirt and brayettes (shorts) as opposed to sleeves and that would add some weight. (this is again specifically mentioned to have been done in german sources on how to wear armour) The plates of this armour weigh about the same as the Sigismund suit in wienna, as a comparison. Once you set it up for jousting with a frogmouth helm (and the shield) the weight does go up. as to the horse armour it is also light, but it is again as per many of the originals, even though those also vary. A typical longbow or crossbow shot has about 100 J of energy (even though current youtube wisdom is trying to push that to the very extremes at 130, that is hardly representative of the common archery of the period) and 1 to 1,2 mm is just starting to make enough of a difference there to matter a great deal. the main armour for the man is much thicker as it needs to withstand lancestrikes and pollaxe and warhammer blows that pack a much higher level of energy at 3 times that of an arrow for jousting lances and potentially more for ash war lances.

@@airnt I'm trying to break into the jousting seen up here in Canada. There jousting style has been called stunt jousting by one English jouster I was talking to. It is the hardest hitting of any style I have seen yet. They say its a German style. They are using thick stainless steel harness . I have gotten a price on a spring steel Milanese harness at $29,000, but that's a bit out of my price rang. The stainless harness The Knights of Valor are using is around 6,000 to 8,000. It dose weight a lot more and that will limit what kind of horse I can use. I would rather have the lighter armour and use a smaller, faster horse over a big slower draft cross type of horse. Lance length is 16 feet? or did it very from time period?

@@ShawnCFarm the 'american' style tends to use dowels, ie cilindrical wooden rods. these push more and punch less... (don't get me wrong, it still feels like being hit by a freight train) but they are more likely to unhorse and less likely to penetrate the armour. In europe the most common jousting style is frangible tip, ie blasa or pine or cardboard tips that are the weaker part that breaks, they are only 3 foot long, so the connecting metal tube that holds the tip commonly hits as well with a thicker, stouter and stiffer lance then hitting you, so that also can be quite a lot harder than it sounds. then there is 'historical solids' where we use pine tree trunks and sharp steel coronels. these 'punch more and push less' this makes it less likely to unhorse but more likely to rip shields off, or penetrate armour. this is the closest to the historical reality, but it is requiring repro saddles and the ammo as well as the armour as well as the (rather expendable) shields are more costly. (then there is theatrical jousting where people do stunt falls and the like, which is a totally different skill. 'pretending' can be sometimes more complicated than doing it for real. it is distinct but an artform in itself)

very interesting, though gruesome. that is a really interesting datapoint for me, actually.

@@airnt to be noted with cattle and horned animals in particular is that in the UK and Europe atleast they bolt gun to the forehead with unhorned animals and have to go through the back of the skull with horned ones (they prefer forehead to collect brain matter for mad cow disease testing). as the horns thicken the skull at that point, so perhaps look at unhorned animals for that kind of data? joys of an animal welfare degree lol

@@poppymason-smith1051 interesting, i think the evidence is pased on short descriptions at the time of slaughter, so some of these details are not always clear. in terms of killing hte horse in battle, Pietro Monte des speficially describe a warhammer to the forehead. horse skulls are not that thick in the middle, though, so i have seen skulls with boltguns to the forehead having been done in that manner in modern times. also there is damage to slaughtered remains of animals with marks from the 'pollaxe' in their forehead, but the skulls are quite fragementary, often so it is a bit tricky

Go ahead, Google it

there is a resemblance, i suppose. they seem to have based their design on a mash up of a series of historical examples, 2 of the most well known extant examples are the basis of this reproduction, so if you base it on the same material you get a pretty similar result... though not the same as they had a few different restrictions in the game and of course more freedom in historical correctness if they wanted it. you can see they based the saddle on a well known example that is early 16th cenutury with the roped rolls and the pronounced sweep in the arcon

at my home. this is in the armoury (armour room, not to be confused with the smithy where armour gets made, out in the garden) The 'kemenate' is the name of the house, it refers to 'kamin' so fireplace. It is a Schloß first granted to Ritter von Rexrot in 1483, a major army commmander in the Schmalkalischen Krieg. so it is a knightly manor, really, which is really what 'schloß' denotes, whereas on the top of the hill is the actual castle which is a defensible structure, where Von Rexrot was born.

@@airnt jesus.. I am so damn jealous. Are you from germany?

@@blsancinet7409 i am originally Dutch, but I was able to buy this property in Thüringen a few years ago, quite a challenge to look after such a piece of history. (and a completely different budget than i was ever used to) 'man wächst mit seine Aufgaben.' as they say in Germany (you grow with your challenges)

@@airnt I know, i am from Stuttgart :D You should Open a museum or something. If you should ever be in Stuttgart maybe you want to visit our HEMA club. We focus on Peter von Danzig.

@@blsancinet7409 i would love to