+rhemorigher subliminal messaging :)

Yes too bad we can't post pictures

@@Domnall1234 you can now

​@@robertfaucher3750 how

Arkthul I know it's a year later, but I hope you don't mind me expanding on what he said. First, it wasn't just fancy armor decorations that broadcast your wealth, but all those fancy coat(jacket or tabbard) of arms and painted shields? They furtheredd this, saying not just that you're rich, but sometimes outright who you were. Second, this was very important not just for the sake of 'I don't want to die" or "time for a payday", but also for stability. These rich nobles leading the baattle were also the political leadership of the day, and in spite of the stereotype of the 'idiot lord' running things and picking on the peasants, most were pretty competent. This means that their survival ensured stability, with steady laws and leadership, instead of further exacerbating power struggles with the constant dying of those in charge and their heirs/advisors.

Medieval craftsmanship and engineering built the Notre Dame cathedral

+99IronDuke Thank you and welcome!

same here. Really enjoying the amount of detailed and well presented information :)

+Knyght Errant ^ forgot to mention you on the reply

Juan Pedro Fisanotti Thanks, and welcome to the channel!

Matt easton is excellent. I came here via Metatron, who also reccommended this site.

I'm fairly certain those are hourglass gauntlets my friend.

+John Pepper All styles of gauntlets are like that.

SAairsoftComrade yes of course, but still the hourglass shape makes it easier to exploit :) imo

+John Pepper If you're referring to stabbing through the palm, then yes all gauntlets share this weakness. If you're talking about going in through the cuff, I would find that to be a highly unlikely target. There are much better, more easily accessible targets that an opponent would seek out before trying to get a weapon inside the cuff of a gauntlet from the back side (which is the only approachable side.) I think any injury sustained by the entry of a weapon into the cuff of a gauntlet would be more incidental than intentional.

I heard it on some HEMA event, useful in grappling I think they said

Alexandru Kantakouzenos von Carstein Zarovich Warhammer Fantasy's Brettonnia is based on Hundred Years War era France and England. A lot of the armor is inspired from this period in history, just as the Empire is essentially late 15th and 16th century Holy Roman Empire / Germany.

That I already know, but if you pay attention frame by frame and it is the exact same one as yours, I have really good eyes, when it comes to color & shape, 100 % identical, minus they have more gold because they overtax their peasants, but back the matter of hand what is the source you based your armor off? Because that would also be the ones that G.W. used during the 8th editions when a lot of the models got an overhaul .

+Guyona Buffalo I have a couple styles of helmets that I will be showing, but no other time periods of armor. I do have several weapons that I would be happy to share as well.

+Blank- blade It's not a kastenbrust, here's another angle (www.flickr.com/photos/cgkukulka/5761652636/sizes/l/in/photostream/), it's just fluted. I much prefer the feel of a leather glove to a linen glove. I think it feels a lot nicer on the hand, fits better, and has a little stretch if needed.

+Knyght Errant I am *so* into linnen gloves but my armourer tries to talk me out of it all the time ^^ Well i´ll see. Leather is sturdier aswell it seems. Oh i crave good fitting gloves with my slim hands :D I think i could even wear the delicate Faltenbündelhandschuhe of the sigismundsharness ^^

+Blank- blade If you end up going the leather route, consider these, they are constructed in a more traditional method than the modern deerskin work gloves in my gauntlets. They're not perfect analogues to medieval gloves, but they're pretty nice and cheaper than having perfect handsewn medieval gloves made (www.leatherglovesonline.com/np/MensGloves-ByStyle-Western-geier-g200-deerskin-gloves.htm#page=details). I have a pair, I've just been waiting for my current pair to wear out first. But if you like the linen gloves, go for it, but be prepared to replace them more frequently.

When we were talking about 'up to date' or 'period correct' equipment we were talking about the very highest echelon of the military population, those who could afford the most 'modern' armour. The lesser nobility and certainly the common soldiery would wear whatever they could get their hands on, and very often would wear 'outdated' stuff.

+Tork789 I'm unaware of any convincing evidence that mail was used on the palm side of either mail mittens or plate gauntlets. There are some manuscript images that show that, but they are few and far between, and often a mirror image of another figure in the same scene (they used templates to not have to freehand everything) and it's likely an artistic error.

+Knyght Errant I see, thanks for the answer!

+Akm72 Yes, I was bouncing my leg and it was rubbing against the cloth on the table. I was aware of it as soon as I sat down to edit, but no way am I recording the whole thing over again :) I'll be more careful next time.

No, that's incorrect, the helmet is probably the most important part. During the Early Medieval Period, or the Dark Ages, the only body part that is protected by later "plate" armor is the head, and that's because the head was the top priority to protect with armor. A good strike to the bare hand will put you out of combat, but it won't kill you unless it is bleeding profusely or gets infected without any treatment. A good strike to the bare head, however, will kill you very quickly. I'd rather live the rest of my life without being able to hold a sword than on the battlefield dying of a strike to the head.

@@famlrnamemssng Disagree completely. Without the gauntlets, the knight cannot use his hands or arms to protect himself from any edged weapon and the head subsequently will go as a matter of course. I stand by my comment.

@@chuckschillingvideos then why did the hands go unprotected for centuries while the helmet was constantly being developed? Even if he couldn't protect himself, that still gives him a much better chance of living than getting wacked on the head and dying instantly

@@famlrnamemssng Because they were using shields. Even a child should have known that.

@@chuckschillingvideos Ok, fair point. But I still stand by everything else I said. If you can give me a full argument for why you would rather get hit with a weapon in the head than in the hand, then I'll be happy to change my mind. On the topic of shields, you would still have a shield if you were struck in the hand, which can be used for defense, or you still have the unwounded hand if we're talking about a period after shields. In addition to this, common footsoldiers of a later period may or may not have worn shields, but there were still many who didn't wear shields or gauntlets. If you were a knight, and you were too wounded to fight, flee, or defend yourself, you would likely yield and be held ransom rather than killed, as Ian LaSpina says in the video. And with all of the chaos on a battlefield, it doesn't seem that difficult to get away from a fight and towards your side if you're too wounded to continue fighting, as the combatants are more concerned about people attacking them then attacking unarmed soldiers who are fleeing.

+Michael Eversberg II I will consider doing a short video after this series is over where I weigh each piece individually.

+Erik Reaver I've always wondered about this too. We often seem to put a lot of emphasis on the details of the armour depicted in 12th and 13th century manuscripts (mostly because we have so little archaeological evidence) But sometimes they just seem to depict things that would be completely impractical, like the rings on the insides of mail gauntlets and mittens, and then we just kinda overlook that part. I often get the feeling, that out of a lack of evidence, we're perhaps drawing too many conclusions based on doubtful depictions in illuminations made by monks, who would have had at best superficial knowledge of knightly armour.We also often seem to be taking later illustrations more litteral than earlier ones, which I find curious, because what basis do we really have, that they are more accurate than earlier ones? Noone looks at the Bayeux Tapestry and thinks, that Norman knights painted their horses legs in different colours, that's obviously artistic license to make all the different legs stand out. We no longer seem to think, that the knights themselves wore a-historic "ring mail" or went into battle dressed in lozenge motley (although this was actaully taken litterally by some scholars at one point). But when it comes to later depictions like in the Maciejowski Bible, people suddenly start taking all kinds of fancyful depictions of weapons, armour and other equipment litterally.

Finkeren Quite an interesting point you make. On the other hand, mentioned Maciejowski Bible with it's fancyful weapons - the falchions, mainly - thing is that those at least proved practical, while rings on the inside of the palm would certainly not be. :-) And regarding the "ring mail", I can't help but to wonder if it WAS a thing, somewhere, some day. I am a fantasy nut in my heart and I'd like to try and make such a thing, someday, even if for pure fantasy setting.

+Erik Reaver I'm not going to say, that "ring mail" didn't exist in some form at one point or another (don't quote me on it, but I think there are actual historic examples of something very similar from medieval Japan) What bothers me about "ring mail" as it's usually depicted (that of fairly large metal rings being stitched individually to a protective garment, usually leather) is that it's just not very functional. It's quite similar to that other kind of fantasy armour with lots of square or rounded plates sown onto a jacket or sometimes stitched together to form a single piece of "armour" (as seen a lot in "Braveheart") The problem, as Matt Easton put it, is that you're essentially "covering yourself in gaps". Any stroke that impacts a ring (or plate) will automatically be directed towards the nearest gap between the rings/plates, since there is no overlapping like you find on llammelar armour and no outer layer of fabric or leather to catch the weapon and prevent it from sliding..

+Finkeren ...into a gap, like on a brigandine or coat of plates. Such a garment would protect a bit against cuts but be almost completely useless against thrusts. The "ring mail" might be very slightly better than the one with the plates though, because it could potentially catch a thrusting point inside one of the ring and trap it rather than have it glance off into a gap. But still there would only be that single ring to hold back the point, and even a semi-hard thrust could well simply break or stretch the ring to allow the point to ho right through with most of its power. Add to That the fact that such and armour would be very hard to maintain, especially keeping the rings free from rust, when they are permanently attatched to the garment and left out in the open exposed to the elements. To me it just seems utterly ineffective compared to the amount of work it would take to produce.

+Finkeren The stitch on lots small disk armour did happen, On the West-coast of Canada the Tlingit used used Chinese coins to make there armour. Well the top layer of there armour, a hard wood cuirass was worn underneath.

Historically, finger gauntlet plates do not appreciably extend beyond or enclose the finger tips. It's one of the reasons a lot of modern people shy-away from finger gauntlets in the first place for modern combat sports. If they need to use them for historical purposes but require greater protection, sometimes custom reproductions can be made in a mitten style that resembles a finger gauntlet, or includes safety features like an enclosed thumb or another ahistorical change that will ultimately compromise some function, but give you more protection. Finger injuries in finger gauntlets are not terribly uncommon unfortunately. Instead of having an existing pair custom modified though, I would have them custom built with that added protection in mind. I can't comment on how well they will work with regard to protection or compromised function (like grip and feel for example), but that is something you'll want to consider before investing.

@@KnyghtErrant Whoa thank you for the speedy reply and I see this is very helpful.

+Comrade Frisealach The finger plates are not directly riveted to the metacarpal plate, they are articulated via leathers and the glove, so the thumb isn't too restricted at all. If you look at the still around 11:50 you can see that the metacarpal plate forms a little curve enclosing a small section of the back of the thumb. Your thumb is free to move beyond that.

Knyght Errant Interesting, thank you for replying.

Knyght Errant Another question I have as a recent subscriber, is do you intend to make reviews about 'Early Medieval' and 'Dark Age' / 'Late Antiquity' era armours? I'm finding your current videos to be very educational and interesting. And I would like to hear your opinions about Roman, Germanic/Anglo-Saxon and 'Celtic' armours from that era such as the 'Sutton Hoo' helmet.

My knowledge or armor is mostly focused on late medieval and high medieval armors. My knowledge of early medieval and late antiquity armor is not as detailed, but I would certainly consider touching on it in the future.

I actually just borrowed a pair of early 15th century Italian scaled finger gauntlets to make a video about. The owner uses them for fighting HEMA style armored combat in all the time. A full on poleaxe shot to the fingers is still going to end poorly, but that's the nature of any fingered gauntlet, scales or plates. The nice thing about scale fingers (if they're made properly, which most aren't) is that they almost always provide at least two layers of steel over the finger at all points while remaining quite mobile. Most modern scales aren't made quite right though.

Knyght Errant oh! Thank you dearly! Yeah I've heard plenty of complaints and figured maybe we were missing something because they seemed popular in later periods of plate use, do you know of a good maker to get scaled fingers from, Wasson i imagine?

The pair I'm borrowing were made by him, yes. If you go to my facebook page ( facebook.com/KnyghtErrant ) the latest post on there from today (11 June) is a photograph comparing my gauntlets with the scaled gauntlets so you can see what they look like. Most people ignore the compound curvature on finger scales and just make little U-shaped pieces of metal, which is not quite right.

Knyght Errant thanks a ton!

The thumbs flex at both knuckles. Enclosed thumbs, like you see on a lot of modern sport gauntlets are generally a modern safety adaptation, not a historical gauntlet feature.

Thanks

+Nathan Bryant It's something I will definitely consider in the future, but I own no milanese or gothic examples of reproduction to show you, so it would have to be done in photographs only.

+Knyght Errant ok. thanks for the consideration

I think you may be describing something like these, if so, yes there were - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mJ-nhsqq1J-uhH0.html

For people who are otherwise in armor, I suspect it's because they simply don't have their gauntlets on. Plane gloves offer virtually no protection other than protection from light abrasion, and the armored man would already have the integral gloves sewn into his gauntlet. Gloves aren't really a good alternative to a gauntlet, but I suppose a person who couldn't afford armor might consider a glove over nothing.

It is your last point that bothers me. Cause I absolutely agree with it and yet we still dont see it depicted in artwork as far as I know. Chainmail mittens sure, gauntlets too as well as bare handed. No simple gloves though. I find that a little odd is all.

Rim Andries But we also very seldom get to see the kind of person who wouldn't have access to gauntlets. The well armed are very over-represented in artistic sources.

+Knyght Errant true. And that certainly makes things more complicated. Not to mention that, should they have been used, simple leather gloves hardly survive 600 years for us to use as historical evidence, especially if they cheaply made and in fact disposable. Its just always been a pet peeve of mine. Did my fair shair of HEMA sparring and I cringe at the thought of having to fight bare handed. I would grab anything I could get my hands on while I still had them. Anyways thanks for answering and always like your vids!

Just read a source from Fiore. Detailing how was frequently challenged to a duel with sharp sword, and no protection aside from a doublet/garment and plain leather gloves ;)

Historical gauntlets are generally built in a way that provides overlap with the bracer **and** very large range of motion, no gap necessary. I think the design in the drawing is selling real armor a bit short. Even very close fitted 15th century gothic style gauntlets utilize very clever articulation to achieve incredibly high range of motion in all directions of the wrist without sacrificing coverage.

Matthew St. Cyr "In movies and videogames"....Yeah the answer is probably a big "NO"

Why so serious? (c)

+John Huang Protective enough that they weren't omitted from a full kit from the invention of the mail muffler to the end of the Medieval period and well into the Renaissance :) But yes, you can certainly get your fingers smashed very soundly even while wearing gauntlets, especially finger gauntlets. But they will also save your fingers and hands from being broken by anything less than a fully committed hand-strike.

bowmen would wear leather or no glowes, it was hard for him to write his name, but how would ti be to pull a bow string ?

+clubinglex Period artwork, often from the 15th century on (and sometimes beforehand) shows bowmen in full harness. But often times they go out of their way to show that the archers are not wearing gauntlets. There's also a lot of artwork that does show them wearing gauntlets, but who knows if the illuminator just didn't consider it at the time of painting. From a practical standpoint, I would think the wear of gauntlets would interfere with the ability to properly manipulate the bow. But during the 14th century, you wouldn't expect to see longbowmen fully armored up in large numbers anyway.

Knyght Errant well, I'm not an expert like you but I've seen in movies ,pictures and paintings that in some period(i don't know what) they started using crossbows more, that would maybe be used in some cases, with the gauntlets. Can you tell me if I'm right or wrong(i think I'm probably wrong)

+Just a talking taco The preference for crossbow or longbow, at least during the height of the Hundred Years War (which is my focus) seems to be more divided along cultural / tactical lines, not that one is newer or better than the other. That being said, I would *think* it would be easier to shoot a crossbow with gauntlets on compared to drawing a longbow, but I have exactly 0 experience with either weapon, nor am I familiar with any good research on it so I don't really know. :)

Historically it's all about status. In my living history club, I portray a landed Esquire in service to a minor knight. There is a little decoration on my helmet, on my gauntlets and on my plaque belt. Other than that, my armor is intentionally left plain to try and represent that my portrayal is of some means, but he is not as wealthy as the lords he serves.

Ah, I'd completely missed the brass-covered hinges on the bascinet. Now it all makes sense. I'm guessing the level of decoration depends more on the owner's wealth and taste than on their official social rank, but would high-quality and custom-fitted but completely plain armors have been at all common? Among, say common-born men at arms/serjeants or poorer esquires? Or would anyone with the means to afford a good harness also have the means to get it decorated it in this period? By the way, thank you so much for being so responsive both to myself and others in these comments.

By this time in England, the make up of the men-at-arms is very much gentrified, even though knights aren't terribly common. The term man-at-arms is used to include any fully armed man, including knights, so all knights are men-at-arms, but only a handful of men-at-arms are knights. The 'Esquires,' are in essence one of the lower strata of the gentry and make up the bulk of the men-at-arms. Being able to afford a plain but high-quality custom armor is already in and of itself a statement of status. Adding decoration is icing on the cake for anyone who can afford it. While a well-to-do merchant class individual may be able to afford a full harness, it wouldn't be as common as for someone born into the gentry, and to have it decorated, even less so. There are always exceptions, where some merchant has amassed more wealth than some knights or even minor nobility, or an Esquire who actually draws more money from his lands than a knight but has refused the knighthood etc., but they are generally exceptions. All that being said, fancy decoration is usually the domain of those with the extra cash to spend.

I don't have any interesting further questions, but I figured I should thank you again for taking the time to compose such a detailed response. So thanks. This sort of concrete stuff really helps me get a better grip on what all these vague medieval titles actually mean.

It's my pleasure. I'm always happy to take the time for people who are genuinely interested! As one last thing, I would add to always keep in mind that these things can be highly contextual. What is true for England from 1380-1415 may not be true for Germany at the same time, or even England before or after etc.,

+godofimagination I don't use a shield, so I don't have much personal experience trying to hold one with my gauntlets on, but it's not difficult to grip a sword of pollaxe with them on.

Mike Mac I would make sure the peasantry is adequately equipped, no need for vanity.

There is a surviving gauntlet at the Musee de Valere in Switzerland that is a plate mitten gauntlet, and the fingers are covered in mail. The mail is not individual fingers though. www.pinterest.com/pin/131026670388416184/

@@KnyghtErrant awesome! Another quick question: what do you think about Demi-gauntlets

@@tristanspencer8471 if you mean hourglass style gauntlets with no fingers, that comes mostly from people not understanding or realizing that most surviving hourglass gauntlets have simply lost their fingers over time.

@@KnyghtErrant so you’d always want some form of metal protectiom over your fingers right? Like mail, scale or plate?

+Jared McClelland Dogs specifically represent fidelity/loyalty from my understanding.

I figured that it was symbolic of something and that people didn't really go around standing on dogs. Thanks

+Jared McClelland To my knowledge many of these animals depicted are actually supposed to be lions, symbolic for nobility and martial prowess.

+Jared McClelland its to symbolize that he was the top dog.

+Vesrox Keen hunter? Beloved pet?

In general, demi gauntlets are an invention of certain modern reenactment societies. Of all the surviving hourglass gauntlets most have since lost their fingers, but all retain the rivet holes where they were once attached. Whether the modern use of demi-gauntlets comes from a misinterpretation of the extant examples, optimization for use with certain styles of modern sport hilts, or a combination of both, I don't know.

@@KnyghtErrant well this could be a controversiële take, but maby those holes were for riviting to a padded or mail coverd leather gauntlet/glove? If there were no small plates for the fingers pressent at the digsites were the "demi gauntlets" were found then maby they were never there to begin with? If you can tell me for certain that's wrong then I will believe you, but otherwise just protecting the outside of the hand could make a lot of sense in certain contexts and I choose to interprete the given information that way.

@@joeyvanhaperen7715 on an hourglass gauntlet you have holes for articulations to other plates and holes for the attachment of the leathers which sew in to the glove. You wouldn't want a rivet in the place where a finger plate would normally go if there is only a glove present because it will literally ride right on top of your finger. The surviving gauntlets have both the normal holes for the leathers / gloves and the articulation holes for the construction of the finger plates. Additionally, we would see 'demi-gauntlets' corroborated in other types of sources like wills and inventories, paintings and illustrations, sculpture and funeral effigies, etc.. but they're conspicuously absent.

@@KnyghtErrant okey I makes sense I believe you. I have found some depictions of what looks like scale mittons on 13th century art do you know more about this type of proto gauntlets cause it looks rather cool and I would like to know more about those?

It is from the same time period :)

+sky4eyes There are examples of Milanese harnesses that have an asymmetrical left gauntlet. The left gauntlet is sometimes reinforced, or has a longer cuff, or some feature that makes the left side gauntlet a little more protected than the right side.

+Isaak Rozenkranz I was bouncing my leg and it was hitting the table cloth My directional mic had no problem picking it up and I didn't discover it until after I recorded the video. Sorry about that! I'm more careful now.

Knyght Errant That is a most simple answer, yet still one quite hard to predict :D Thank you for clearing that up.

+John Breitley Yes, I'm aware that I did that in this video. Not much that could be done about it after the fact. I've been cognizant of that problem in subsequent videos.

+Knyght Errant Didn't notice mate . You're doing a great job.