Because he's just been told they ran out of Camembert.

@@sergarlantyrell7847 Damn I would be pretty upset too

Read Contact, Book 2 of the Crossover Series Longbows and Flintlock Muskets are very effective against 11th century armor

The best part of being in maillie is taking it of

well, except for looking nothing like an actual norman person lol.

BUTTER!!!

Lmao nice one

It's harvesting season

I vill trink from yoor skull!

Away with you vile begger

lol

Ikr it's nuts

With high quality too

camera didn't exist back in medieval times

@@OperatorMax1993 then how are we watching this, dingus?

@@OperatorMax1993 Yes it did. Lmao, you are not very good at interpreting jokes, are you?

Its alright, theres no canadian back then...

Nah, if you grew up in that time period you wouldn't have that attitude.

You must be an native English!

I think a knight and a squire would be of the same social class though, so it wouldn't be out of place to thank your squire.

incorrectly shown(((

Just a shame we didn't get the extreme zoom in from afar for the full effect

@@SK-yd1wc Yeah, it's from Oblivion

@@SK-yd1wc IT'S ALMOST HARVESTING SEASON Hmm I'd recommend Skyrim over Oblivion just because the gameplay and mechanics are a little smoother. I absolutely love M&B and Skyrim, both for different reasons. The world and Exploration is probably Skyrim's biggest advantage, since M&B is mostly copy and paste dialogue and villages. However combat and battles and politics are far better in M&B.

I think i love you 💘

@@SK-yd1wc skyrim is nothing like mb or kingdom come but you need to play it

And Sometimes Poor Farmboy's Who Can Ride Dragons.

@@apollo-cv2wl also baby bastards who weren't actually bastards

@@emmanueljameson6148 nice got ref

@@apollo-cv2wl Eragon?

Thank you for this comment

@American Man only 1 American man

@American Man I grew up near a huge army base and i have to say that the quality of the men has been sliding down since about 2005 or so. Alot of the guys getting into the army now that i see are either just joining because they want the lifelong benefits (some are actually pretty adept at exploiting the system), because they want all the attention and prestige of being a veteran, or (maybe worst of all) there are the guys who join up because they honestly can't think of anything else to do after high school. Alot of them are basically just boys with guns and the enlistment standards were dropped so low that the army will take just about anyone with the hopes that they can turn them into a half way functioning soldier, which they cant always do so they wind up with some recruits who you wouldn't trust to park your car carrying around a gun.

@Britannia I commanded an army in the Royal Lorderan Army and for the Scourge, but other than that no. I grew up next to a big base and alot of my friend and family are veterans

@Britannia a joke. I've been going by the name Arthas for like 15 years and he was a warrior prince in Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft.

@Britannia You don't have to be a soldier to criticize a soldier. He's just commenting on what he has observed over years of living close to an army base and having a lot of military family members.

Sounds like something lived 🤔 🍽🍴🥄😐

Lol

@Montgomery15 Snooker Videos my money is on the United States if they were a country in the middle ages

You mean the Battle of Battle :D

@Montgomery15 Snooker Videos Nah, I bet Williams gonna win.

@Britannia coming from the salty brit that lost to a couple of drunken yanks with the help of France and spain

@Britannia lol 400,000 traitors🇺🇸 yeah thats true, we still won with our shitty army in 1776 and beat the most powerful army in the entire world during that time its crazy to think about that 🇬🇧 if the united states was a country in the middle ages we would beat every army in the world tbh

Really helps to understand how the Normans were able to conquer the Saxons. They were beginning to experiment with the use of digital camera equipment by 1066 while the saxons were still employing bulky VHS camcorders.

Chad Knight

You'd be lucky if he only went for your wife.

@Chad Dejesus and then burn the wife and dog and firstborn when youre done

Joke's on him! Bitch has the Plague!

kev3d OmG 🤣

Not sure about that, you know, the Normans Conquered England. The Battle of Azingcourt was way after that, as was the rise of the welsh/english longbow

@@profezzordarke4362 so they had no bows ?

Of course they had bows, and of course they used them in war. The Normans and Saxons both had and used archers, and Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada were both killed by archers.

@@jamesk8730 so there could have been some archer boi around ending this mans whole career despite him wearing chain armor.

@@jamesk8730 Where dafuq did I say they did not have bows?! I said, the "rise" of the english/welsh longbow. You know the *fame* of the british archers wasn't so much of a thing during the norman invasion. Gawd dammit!

You're talking mad shit for someone within crusading distance.

Deus Vult Infidel.

Also, definitely no helmets. Paid a lot for that pretty face, the audience needs to see it.

@@johnladuke6475 Tonights special: The battle of Helms Deep - but without so much helmet in it ...

What a woosh trap

They should have lowered the resolution to 144p to match it to the period as well.

@@AnthonyKravitz more like hand drawings ...

A Norman Knight wouldn't even know what a Muslim is considering Islam hadn't yet become a thing in his time.

clothar23 Lol you do know Norman knights were around in the 11th century right, and Islam existed as far back as the 7th century.

ya he looks silly

@@clothar23 Yes it was a thing at that time, Islam was its greatest during the Uymayyd and Rashidun Caliphate. Which I might as well remind were before the time of Normandy and the Norman's captured Sicily before the Crusades and Charles Martel defeated the Muslims at Tours before the Normans. So yeah Islam and Muslims were a huge fucking deal to Europe.

Because HES GONNA KILL ME BECAUSE IM HALF DRAGON AND HALF REAPER!

That came later, during the 12-13t century if I'm not mistaken

They weren't a separate bit of armour tho. In tapistries, we see them as beeing a part of the hauberk, not a separate coif, as we know them.

Could also hang from helmets ie aventail style

@Draugr_the_Greedy: separate coif appeared for the first time around mid-13th century, but before that (and during 11th century as well) it was an integrated part of the hauberk.

Wrong period, and as far as I know, that one's debated as in how exactly it was worn.

Aye 2 months ago and they read and favourited your comment 2019

No worries, it's just a couple coats. You could just pull them up to go, provided you're out of actual combat of course.

"Hold the piss-bottle still, Gerald..."

You jest, but for later squires that was one of the nastier parts of armour maintenance. Once you get to the point of a full plate harness with mail voiders in the gaps and layers of padded garments beneath, it's too much. The time to leave battle, strip off, do the business, get equipped again, and get back to the fight, was too long to be practical. His Lordship would simply soil the suit like a baby and fight the rest of the battle soaking in his own filth. Then after the action it's up to the suire to get it looking and smelling presentable for the next wearing.

That is true. And speaking of Scandinavia, the Vikings were also armored in a similar fashion, specifically those warriors known as the Hird. These Norsemen would've worn mail over a gambeson, or, if they were in Kievan Rus', they would also have augmented their byrnies with lamellar armor. There are also some nasal helmets that have ocular face guards, typical of the Vikings, but by the 11th century, they start going out of fashion, mainly because a thrust from a sword or a spear would get into the eye socket, as would arrows (if the archer was really well trained). So, they went out of fashion by the 11th century, in Western Europe. In Kievan Rus', these helmets evolved and were continuously used by the Rus', as well as Turkic tribes like the Cumans.

"Their success in the first expedition was down to the Opposing forces not knowing how to deal with heavily mounted knights and footmen. " Sorry but you seems quite biased, based on what armies would that views apply? Quite frankly, what these Norman knights were wearing are not too damn impressive compared to Cataphracht cavalry. And boy, both Abbasids, Seljuks, Byzantines, Fatimids knew what to make out of Cataprachts. Really you are just making hyperbole. The success of the First Crusade was many thing but not knowing how to deal with heavy cavalry was not among them!

@@cool06alt cataphracts are shock heavy cavalry with very specific functionality in the early medieval battlefield. They have been utilised over centuries since 200 AD by the Romans and even earlier by the Parthians/Sassanids. So you are right in how they were already a known force that could be strategically handled for many generations. However they aren’t the much more mobile and swifter armoured Frankish/Normans. The Cataphracts are slower, less agile and have much lower stamina both horse and men due to sheer weight of just armor. They often have reserve horses to change horse during battle after charges were made. On top of that the stirrup was only utilised probably late 10th century in Europe which was incorporated to the early mounted knight that allowed couched lance and faster and higher velocity for smashing infantry lines. Making the Frankish knight even more deadlier than ever. So the effectiveness of cataphracts was known to the eastern armies. But the Dawn of the Frankish heavily armoured knight with kite shield, stirrups, heavier lance, couched lance under the armpits, full hauberk chainmail, meant that they weren’t facing slow cataphracts…… They were facing a highly martial, professional body of fighters that could at higher velocity, higher stamina, smash into infantry lines, retract and go at it all day as shown by Duke William at Hastings and again by the Southern Italian Normans in Italy and Sicily. Bohemond of Taranto was able to wield 700 Norman knights and defeat a reinforcement body of infantry numbering more than 10,000 troops just by charging and reforming and charging again in wedge formation. That kind of efficiency cataphracts do not have under heat of battle especially in the near east. Therefore the proposition was new to the near east and would soon be adapted by both Byzantine and the Eastern Armies

@@ConstantineJoseph 1. Stirrup was invented in Central Asia. Period. Carolingian inspired cavalry army didn't bring something new in here. The use of Stirrup spread faster in the southern sphere than Northern spehere, as West European had to defeat Magyars and gain their knowledge of stirrup. The eastern cavalry by 7th century have stirrup and also rigid frame saddles. 2. Catapracht have lance power of similiar if not better than couched lance. The penetrating power of the cataphract's lance was recognized as being fearful by Roman writers, described as being capable of transfixing two men at once, as well as inflicting deep and mortal wounds even on opposing cavalries' mounts, and were definitely more potent than the regular one-handed spear used by most other cavalries of the period Which the Normans used in the early phase of Crusade. 3. Battle of Doryleaum showed that at the beginning phase, Turkish horse archers excelled at countering Norman knights through hit and run tactic. Until the crusaders reinforcement under pope legate arrived. This showed that not only the aforementioned shock effect that you claimed is not true, it also showed that eastern cavalrymen knew how to deal with heavy cavalry in controlled environment manner. 4. The Eastern world have more better warhorse in term of endurance, speed, and agility than cold blooded european horse. There would be no Coursers and Destriers without Andalusian horse, which was inherited from Arabian horse which was further inherited from Nisean and Caspian horses.

@@cool06alt your understanding of cataphracts is of the earlier Byzantine versions. The Byzantines stopped using Cataphracts since the 6th century and revived it for two periods, the 9th and 10th century and ceasing operating them by 1001 AD. The latter variants were using less heavier armor than the original classical predecessors. Secondly the Komnenian dynasty which was ruling during the first crusade periods had reinstated the usage of these Cataphracts again. However they were found to be similar in capabilities with the armoured cavalry or knight of the day that was being used by other nations and Duchies around Europe. So they weren’t operated beyond the early 12th century as the operational functionality is somewhat similar. Therefore the notion of a specialist Cataphract of that age wasn’t defined as before. The Byzantine doctrine of utilising the cataphract was one of shock and line breaking which is very specific. They were used in wedge formation only to break lines with a follow up of infantry in support to capitalise on the disruption of infantry formations. Secondly Cataphracts used by the Byzantines are specialist assassin squads to target the head or king of the army of the opposing force. So their mission orientation and training completely and utterly differs from western Frankish armoured knights. The Frankish knight is able to fight on horseback all day, all the time and keep the momentum going with charges after charges, feigned retreats and reforming for another charge. From historical understanding the Norman knights can also perform missile cavalry duties with skirmishing fire from javelins hurled into shield wall formations to soften up infantry before reforming and slamming into their lines. The Eastern armies can take on heavy cavalry with missile cavalry but their ability to really hurt them is very much mitigated by the armor of the Frankish knight and the large shield protecting the rider. Also the dismounted Frankish knights fought in shield wall formations which is a Roman/Germanic/Scandinavian doctrine for the longest time utilised by the west. That shield wall of Normans will absorb any missile cavalry fire without a problem, being even more armoured than a Roman Testudo or any Viking wall. The eastern style will work effectively against the Byzantines that did not possess the multi role armoured knight. But against a knight, heavy horse, multi role western force that could switch from heavy infantry to heavy cavalry, they did not have the means to go toe to toe especially in melee and close in warfare. This is down to the long term experience of Western European armies by the late 11th century. They had evolved into a highly martial highly combat oriented societies after fighting the Vikings for 3 centuries and also in evolving their weapons systems to counter the Viking g threat. On top of that the western doctrine had shifted heavily to smaller more elite band of mobile armoured fighters that are professionally trained even from youth to protect expensive holdings like Motte and Bailey forts/ castles all across Francia as wars between Dukes greatly intensified over the last 2 centuries. Overall the Franks and Normans were highly militarised societies by the first Crusade age and were in a sense, sent by the Pope away from Europe, to relief the continent from internal combativeness which was causing too much internal conflicts between christian duchies. What the Pope did was to send 50, a 60,000 heavily armed Europeans who would be clobbering themselves to the east where that military energy and momentum was shown to a concentrated effect as a much more unified force. So it is this heavy militarization, the martial ethos of the Frankish/Normans that really showed why they can withstand any opposition and even take on numerically superior forces sent against them time and time again. They were the “Tiger” tanks of the early medieval age. Well engineered, well equipped, well trained, ferocious, willing to die for religion and were also available in great numbers which makes their campaign a success in its entirety

cool

The world is in war and you need to pee shut up 😁😁😁😁😁

@Tactical Aioli Horse Archery is much harder than most other types of soldiers

@Tactical Aioli then most warriors in history were shitty fighters lol, Spartans wore a decent amount of armor too, you wouldn't call them shitty fighters right?

@Tactical Aioli The fencing masters who wrote the extensive surviving medieval fighting treatises would rather violently disagree with you. Longsword master Fiore even opens his manual with a foreword pointing out that in the past, five people have questioned the quality of his teachings. He killed all of them in duels. You don't add maille voiders and padding to the armpit gap in your plate armour because your opponent is such a poor fighter. You put it there because he's well-trained enough to stab your armpit while you're trying to stop him.

The video is still great compared to modern media or pop culture.

A light gambeson would possibly be JUST for preventing chafing, but the Normans were shown to have heavy gambeson and entirely covered in maille. The video showed the key parts of a Norman knight but not the true armor they really wore. Though you never know EXACTLY what they wore, if anything armor would of been too expensive for most and they would be forced to wear lighter equipment.

this is a really common misconception. although thick padded gambesons existed, they were usually worn by themselves. when the gambeson is worn under armor, it is usually much thinner to allow better movement and to prevent overheating. the reason battle of the nations and HMB guys wear 12 layer thick gambesons is because they're participating in a sport where no one is supposed to get hurt. in real battle, mobility is just as important as protection because people aren't just hitting your armor, they are circumventing it, something that is illegal in battle of the nations and HMB. the gambeson we see in this video is reasonably thick for the period. there were some that were thicker than this, and some that were thinner. a mace or axe could cause some blunt trauma to him, but rather than stuffing himself with pillows to make it so the hits don't hurt, he will simply wear a moderately thick gambeson and use a shield to defend himself from the axes and maces. if his mobility is hindered, he will get fatigued more quickly, have more trouble moving his body, and be easier to knock to the ground. that spells death fairly quickly. if your opponent can just put you on the ground and stab you in the face, it doesn't matter how protective your gambeson was.

We don't even know if warriors wore gambesons or any padded cloth under their hauberk in the 11th century...

+ULFBERHT the gambeson in europe has been traced as far back as the 10th century. it also probably existed before then in europe, there just isn't any surviving proof that it did. in 11th century art we can clearly see the bottoms of gambesons worn underneath hauberks. there is also artwork showing men wearing quilted and padded jackets, so they definitely existed in the period. that being said, it also isn't uncommon to see artwork where soldiers are simply wearing mail over a regular tunic. mail actually does provide some protection against blunt trauma so long as it is well fitted as its supposed to be. so these soldiers wouldn't be totally unprotected against clubs and axes. having your arm broken by an axe is at least better than having it cut off by one.

Wildly Inappropriate It's worth pointing though that the hauberk is the single heaviest piece of armor ever worn by fighters, although it covers (by the early-to-mid 12th century) most of the body. edit: grammar

Quick question (sorry to bother you 4 monts after you commented): An era hauberk would be made 4 in 1, right?

Caleb McCall yes it would even though in some other countries they had more ring like 6 in one but the european ones are 4 in 1

I use thick, butted rings for my mail. Its heavy to hold, but once equipped disperses the overall weight.

As a modern soldier I can tell you we carry way more shit than those pricks did lol. Some people would tell you that the modern soldier load is similar to a Roman Legionary, but Legionaries were not expected to achieve as much and with extra technology, batteries etc. for long patrols our bodies are literally at breaking point (if you trip or slide, your knee/back could be instantly finished)

Muhsin Shah definetly the gothic armor for me, as it is a full-plated armor which gives a good defenses against cuts and blunt hit and also has a good maneuverability at it, and for some extras it has an elegant look.

Nicholas Aja You’re right and the only way to take them out is a pommel to the head.

Abdul Shakoor oh right, blasphemy... How can i forget the ultimate move of the ancient... To end thoust enemy rightly

I like your enthusiasm mate but since everyone has assault rifles these days I'd probably stay away from medieval armour ;)

For modern use I would substitute a Class III-A vest with pouches to carry trauma plates for the gambeson and punt the shield entirely. Then get an HK-91 and a .45 for the weapons I'd use and be good to go.

i thought the same dude xD looked kinda silly too

Then you'd need to undo the flap before you can take off the helmet..

@@liamjm9278 Not really. There is plenty of gap on the sides that they could thread the ties through. The squire could fasten the ties behind the mail panel, but I think it would be more likely that they would simply have the buckle strap be much shorter than the free-end strap and they would fasten off to one side of the face (the same as most modern combat/sports helmets), which could be done up by the fighter himself. I am more inclined to think that the historians have this one wrong, though. If that panel was a attached to the face, the Bayeux Tapestry would probably have shown at least some of the mailed fighters with it tied up (the Bayeux Tapestry is remarkably realistic in most of its other details of arms and armour, unlike many other pieces of period art; some fighting men were clearly closely involved with overseeing the women who sewed it). I am of the opinion that the panel was probably just extra reinforcement over the upper chest, possibly protruding up over the lower throat, but not fastened to the head.

Even though it looks like turning your head would be a bit difficult, you could be surprisingly agile in this stuff. There's a video on YT somewhere of someone in full plate armor doing jumping jacks.

I've seen a video of someone in full plate doing cartwheels :-)

Knights at the gym, if they can do a workout in more modern plate armour, this stuff would let you do almost anything you usually could.

It was slightly more cumbersome than later plate armour, but still well distributed to the point that one could forget that it's there after some time

Its really not historically accurate at all

@@SmokeDog1871How so?

A decent maille would indeed stop most thrusts, things such a spears and lances could likely go through with a powerful thrust, maybe swords, but unlikely and if so the penetration would unlikely be deep (still, talking about a heavy thrust). :)

disagree. Good mail won't stop powerful thrusts there are plenty of videos of spears going through good riveted steel mail. Of course it can weaken thrusts and stop some too but again they can go through as well. The slashing protection is much more prominent so maybe that's why they chose to focus on that. I also think it's implied the gambeson helps as well cushioning the wearer. If they stated good mail being able to stop thrusts altogether like your criticisms then that would be misleading. They didn't even mention the thrusts because it's not as obvious as you suggest especially seeing as the example they are using is made of iron not steel..

i note your disagreement and reject it

The way i see it, both of you are partially right in both your arguments, From what ive learned from videos (tests), books and my own experience. A good riveted maille with some sort of padded garment (such as a gambeson) would stop almost all kind of slashing/cuts, most thrusts except for the heavier thrusts from weapons such as polearms. The maille + gambeson would likely greatly reduce the polearms penetration, but it could quite possible be a bad wound, leathal. Things like swords for example, are to my knowledge unlikely to cause much harm against someone wearing good maille + gambeson by thrusting, as it would be highly unlikely for such a thing to go deep enough through both maille and padding. Both of you agree on that much?

Do you have nothing to back up your claims because otherwise you come across as naive and stubborn. I will respect your opinion if you can come up with evidence that the majority of norman knight armour could withstand overarm spear thrusts entirely etc. There are memoirs in which a knight in the 11th century stabbed through the back of another knight wearing field mail in which the lance went through both the back and front of the mail. Spears can be fatal and other accounts have even stopped lance style spears in the 11th century. It is wrong to assume all knights maille would be impervious to thrusts and thus making a statement like that would not be ideal . The armour they show in the video doesn't look particularly good so I reject your opinion that what they are saying in the video is inaccurate. What is clear is the maille in the video would not stop thrusts nearly as well as it stops cuts which might be why they didn't mention it.... lances, bodkin arrows rondell daggers and overarm spear thrusts can go through good maille and gambeson, it's not easy but there are videos to prove this... The very best 15th century armour holds up well but did the norman knight always have this kind of quality? It's hard to summarise the quality of 11th century armour so your statement and opinion is not as convncing as you would like to believe.

Probably the best reference in this comment section xD

I reckon it would be more comfortable doing the strap over the neck flap. Those thin leather straps are pretty nasty with a heavy helmet.

Vytas it would also allow you to take your helmet off easier, whiteout having to fumble with the strings that fastened the extra piece of mail

Putting it under would be senseless. If you had to remove your helmet for whatever reason, you would also have to undo that bit of armour. Worst case scenario you'd strangle yourself with your own helmet because you were unable to undo the square bit in time.

The chin strap is also helping to keep the gorget in place under the chin. Without being strapped down at the sides, it would be loose and floppy, leaving large gaps to access the neck, which is exactly what it's there to prevent.

Well seperating these terms in the medieval context is quite questionable, because people didn't care about it. The same places, materials and names may have different ways to be pronounced or written. E.g London was called Lundene, Lundewic, Lundenburgh and may more.

6-8 kiloes all on your shoulders if you're not using a belt is still pretty uncomfortable

not as if the kids today have to carry that weight in their backpack to school....

Maille not heavy? Well compared to a dump truck or a planet it isn't heavy, but compared to a peanut or a bag of chips it is. It's all relative mate.

you have underestimated the Asians

umcHugo only the malnourished peasants would be slightly shorter on average.The Upper class would around our height due to having a diet similar to ours.

No, you are correct. Mail coifs attached to the hauberk are shown in the Bayeux tapestry. Idk if they were used by every single knight though. What's really weird is the leather vambraces, which, as far as I know, there is no evidence for in 11th century western Europe.

Me lol

The padded hood isn't strange mate. Do an experiment: Put on a metal helmet with only a leather harness underneath and get your mate to whack you with a cricket bat. My bet is you will be knocked the fk out

Swords aren't cricket bats, maces wouldn't become popular for at least 60 years after the bayuex tapestry, he wears mail underneath his helmet, people have their most hair on their head, and even if you didn't have long thick hair, you could wear a civilian hat under your helmet. Also allot of helmets in this were cone shaped, meaning that the top of the helmet didn't actually rest on the top of your head.

The point is you didn't wear a helmet in battle without padding. Popularity of maces is irrelevant. A soldier would have to be ready for bludgeoning if he's going to fight other soldiers. Good luck with your long thick hair when someone is belting you with the bottom end of a spear shaft.

I doubt anyone with spears did that... got references?

+Vytas People are asking for citations that people expected to get hit in the head in war? What on earth is wrong with them...

Well it's easier to get it on and off, also maybe the leather is uncomfortable just on your chin, leather gives you bad rashes when rubbed against the skin.

Why?

My understanding is that largely that was because another combatant managed to disarm them then get a weapon into striking distance on something unarmored (namely the face around the nasal) and demanding a yield. You can get that kind of advantage on an opponent, it's just really difficult. Later on when full plate comes into play you see alot more wrestling introduced to knight v. knight encounters with a similar thing, one knight pinning his opponent before putting up his victim's face plate and either finishing with a dagger or threatening them to get them to yield.

edwin syah bts is gay

Just stop. You'd be lucky to find two sets of mail exactly alike in the whole fucking country during the 11th century, saying ''every 11th century piece of mail was like this'' is ridiculous. There was little to no mass production of weapons and armour back then. And even then people experimented all the time, you're looking at a 100 years of technological developement and experimentation and saying ''nope they just made mail shirts with integrated coifs'' it makes no sense at all.

Haha righto... How many 11th C hauberks do you have in your private collection mate?

easy psycho, almost every knight in the bayeux tapestry has a mail coif and there is overwhelming archaeological evidence to show that this look was very widespread across western europe during the 11th century. Go read some history books before you bite someone's head off and look like a raging idiot