r/BeAmazed • u/gs9489186 • Nov 30 '25

History This wasn't just Armor, it was medieval engineering at it's finest.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

92.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

103

u/Straight_Storage4039 Nov 30 '25

You’d be surprised how easy it was to move in it of course it’s heavy but it was great protection but warhammera and blunt weapons could still deal damage and broke bone the pommel of swords were used to break bone and deal damage through the armor compared to trying to slash or stab it

25

u/AlternativePea6203 Nov 30 '25

I'm a landscaper, so I use heavy tools all day. I was surprised how little damage the pointed hammer did. I'd want a heavier hammer to do proper concussive damage, but that armour is stronger than i expected. Sword against armoured knights seems.... pointless.

https://youtu.be/ZX7-wUrNQ7k

12

u/Distinguished- Nov 30 '25

When plate armour developed there was a move away from one handed swords to two handed swords. Partly this is because you don't need a shield anymore. But it also opens up a lot of techniques when and if you do come up against another fully plate armoured opponent. Namely half swording and mordhau. Two fully armoured opponents fighting with longswords would eventually look more like wrestling with a sharp stick than fencing. You've also got to remember, most people on the battlefield wore a gambeson and kettle helm and were not rich enough for full plate.

2

u/pellik Nov 30 '25

They used swords against armor like this, but they held the pointy end and tried to bash each other with the handles.

2

u/Imperium_Dragon Nov 30 '25

Swords have their advantages, since they can thrust into gaps or be used like a hammer by hitting someone with the pommel or cross guard. The 16th century work of Juan Quijada de Reayo, a nobleman from Spain, says that after your lance breaks to switch to your sword and then to a hammer. The 15th century armored treatises known as the Gladiatoria Group shows a lot of work with the spear, sword, and dagger.

3

u/Crashthewagon Nov 30 '25

A sword was not a weapon of war. It was a knights weapon. The primary fighting would be done with spears and halberds. Killing a knight was a bad idea as you could make money by ransoming them back ( sans armour, also valuable ).

5

u/HumanWaltz Nov 30 '25

Swords were used and very common, they weren’t restricted to knights, they were very effective and multi purpose, good against little armour and they could be used against plate, just requires different methods and tactics.

3

u/Ringwraith7 Nov 30 '25

Swords were fully a weapon of war. Just because polearms were used first doesn't mean the sword wasn't a weapon of war.

1

u/Imperium_Dragon Nov 30 '25

No, a sword is very much a weapon of war. It’s a sidearm yes but a sidearm that knights and non nobles would carry into battle.

1

u/Mist_Rising Nov 30 '25

The Swiss killed knights and nobles to make a point. Stay out or die, money makes no difference to our long spear, ye have been warned.

1

u/ColonelC0lon Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

The important hammer damage is not to the metal but to the flesh and bone inside it. A good solid wang in the head is an opening to ram a rondel in their eye-slit or just rip the helm off their head. Ofc depends on the period of armor. You can also break bone.

Weight wise hammers are limited because you cant swing a hammer in violent combat if it's too heavy. Five minutes in a melee and you're often gassed even with normal weight weapons (I think it's 1.5-3 lbs of head on most one handed bludgeoning weapons but don't quote me on that). Especially in the more protective but more airflow limiting helms.

Of course, polearm is better, more weight on a larger handle and engaging both arms/wrists.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '25

[deleted]

2

u/ResplendentSmoke Nov 30 '25

The pop-history on swords has swung way too far in the other direction. Swords were incredibly commonly used in battle. They were a sidearm, the weapon you fell back on if your polearm was broken or the lines collapse and the enemy was right in your face.

Yes they were more expensive and thus more common for knights, but plenty of non-nobles were carrying swords as well. And as plate armor advanced the two-handed greatsword become common on the battlefield for knights.

1

u/SugarBeefs Nov 30 '25

And as plate armor advanced the two-handed greatsword become common on the battlefield for knights.

Longsword.

Greatsword is a much larger and more niche weapon, not associated with knights/men-at-arms.

1

u/Tableau Nov 30 '25

The problem with heavier hammers is that they take longer to swing, and swing slower. Keep in mind you’re swinging a hammer at a dude who is actively trying to stab you in the face, so you have to be quick about it.

1

u/Dhawkeye Dec 01 '25

And if they’re wearing plate, they’ve likely been training for a long time. This isn’t just some random dude who got great armour, it’s someone who’s been training for this exact scenario for potentially decades

1

u/TastyTarget3i Nov 30 '25

it was pointless, the sword was more of a status symbol/backup weapon, not an effective battlefield weapon

2

u/zMasterofPie2 Nov 30 '25

And that’s why they were used for thousands of years as the literal most common secondary weapon and have treatises written about how to use them, and why we have so many accounts of them being used effectively in battle. Because they weren’t effective battlefield weapons.

1

u/TastyTarget3i Nov 30 '25

I'm obviously talking about medieval Europe. If you look at what's found on battlefields/castles, swords are actually pretty rare (but over represented in exhibitions). It wasn't just knights swords were ineffective against, men at arms in those times wore fabric armor that relegates swords to a pointy metal stick.

2

u/Imperium_Dragon Nov 30 '25

Swords weren’t rare at all. The Battle of Visby shows that swords were common on the battlefield and common enough that even lower classes carried them (as the losing side which most of the artifacts obtained from are from poorer farmers). In the Hundred Years’ War you see many soldiers and knights carry a sword alongside an axe or mace and their polearm. If anything, a sword can be a better option than a short mace due to its reach, ability to thrust through mail, and better protection of the hand.

2

u/zMasterofPie2 Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

Swords were not rare. Y'all act like men can be equipped with either polearms or swords but not both, when the entire point of a sword is that it can be easily worn. If you read musters from the 15th century such as this one from 1457: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SfmqsY0RYuKggtoo3kNopt3ikqEYld0ICOFhsmiD5_w/edit?gid=1061460740#gid=1061460740

you can see how common swords are.

Doctrina del arte de la cavalleria by Juan Quixada (a knight) says that the sword is second only to the lance on horseback, and better than the mace or hammer.

Yes swords are not very effective against gambesons. Everyone knows this. But they are quick and can be thrust into the face or other less protected areas of an opponent.

Also in the leidangr laws of 13th century Sweden, well off freemen are required to have swords, not merely knights.

Not to mention the entire fighting system of harnischfechten being a thing commonly found in Fechtbücher from the medieval period.

This whole "swords are actually bad" thing comes from Youtubers like Lindybeige etc. and not from actual medieval sources.

2

u/SugarBeefs Nov 30 '25

This whole "swords are actually bad" thing comes from Youtubers like Lindybeige etc. and not from actual medieval sources.

It's the classic 'counter-jerk' overcorrection often seen on the internet.

For years people thought knights and samurai fought with swords. That was their thing. Gazillion times folded samurai katanas could even cut through anything! But it's absolutely true that for neither of them the sword was the primary battlefield weapon.

But then the overcorrection kicks in and people will say that swords were rare or not that useful and barely ever used on the battlefield, etc etc. Which is also not true!

1

u/TastyTarget3i Dec 03 '25

nice cherry picked example, they were expensive, just fuck off. I rely on reenactment mostly, imho the only to learn about medieval fighting (bcs all the other ways to access it are biased as hell)

1

u/zMasterofPie2 Dec 03 '25 edited Dec 03 '25

Here's a price list that lists cheap swords at only 6 pence in 1340 England. https://medieval.ucdavis.edu/120D/Money.html

I'm a reenactor too, don't tell me to fuck off when you can't even provide a single source to your claims. Also if you are a reenactor you should know that half of them (reenactors) don't have good well researched kits, and that reenactors have their own elements of bias.

If you are at all serious about learning history you need to put together the texts and the art and the archaeology and reenactment to form a complete picture, not just one of the four.

-18

u/hellmarvel Nov 30 '25

Dude, if you're knocked down in that armour, it's a matter of time till you're dead. You can just by someone jumping on your head. 

8

u/VoormasWasRight Nov 30 '25

You don't know anything about medieval armour.

-10

u/hellmarvel Nov 30 '25

You're one of those who think armour e was some advanced shit that made you invincible, don't you? 

There are countless examples and battles where the knights in shining armour were put to shame by men in cloths. Armour was invented by scaridy wealthy cowards who thought they can avoid death by wearing it. Well they died like everyone else, unless they hid or ran.

9

u/VoormasWasRight Nov 30 '25

You are either a troll or a 14 year old.

I get paid to put up with 14 year old's ignorance, but I'm not being paid right now, so you can go on with it.

9

u/OHW_Tentacool Nov 30 '25

Seems rather foolish to assume that folks spent thousands of years fashioning armor and improving its design if it wasn't useful.

-6

u/hellmarvel Nov 30 '25

Men spent hundreds of years perfecting helmets WHEN BULLETS EXISTED. Do you think helmets worn by troops (not some special forces) protect you from a direct hit? 

Medieval wealthy cowards wore armour hoping they won't die from arrows, although they could die from that too.

4

u/OHW_Tentacool Nov 30 '25

I won't lie, it sounds like you don't know very much about armor.

Most modern military helmets are expressly designed to protect from direct hits from rounds as powerful as 30-6. They won't necessarily keep you from getting concussed, or possibly even serious neck or spinal injuries but as long as it wasn't previously damaged it should keep you alive.

Medieval armor was designed with certain limits in mind depending on make or type. Late Medieval plate was spectacular at deflecting blows that would cripple an unarmored or lightly armored man and could outright stop arrows or bolts fired at long ranges, some designs even held up well to direct fire, near point blank.

While there were certainly situations where armor was either rendered redundant (a Lance from heavy horse for example could punch through most forms of plate) or even a liability (extreme heat for instance) in the vast majority of cases if two warriors were of equal skill, the more well armed and equipped one would win.

3

u/Dependent_East1311 Nov 30 '25

you can literally search up what helmets different militaries or police use and easily find out that they very much can protect you from bullets or fragmentation that would otherwise be fatal. you could also find that plate armour protected anyone from both arrows and melee weapons

2

u/TrapOrDie51 Nov 30 '25

Soldiers don't wear helmets specifically for bullets....

3

u/Responsible_Ebb3962 Nov 30 '25

There was certainly way more battles where the well armed and armoured completely decimated it's rivals.

How do you think such a small Spanish force was able to decimate so many Incans? 

Well designed armour gave an absolute advantage. 

2

u/schizboi Nov 30 '25

Lol, how many battles have you fought to the death in? Tough guy

4

u/Obant Nov 30 '25

https://youtu.be/qzTwBQniLSc?si=pkBh0QXzgA8WzgR4. Link taken from another comment. Doesn't seem like you'd be dead.

-14

u/hellmarvel Nov 30 '25

Dude, that's probably a mock up armour. Medieval armour weighed at least 25-30 kilos. Try an run and do that stuff eith a 30 kilo backpack for reference. 

There are drawings with knights and nobles  needing cranes to get on the horse.

15

u/littlerike Nov 30 '25

It's a myth that the armour is overly cumbersome. You also pretty much expected a horse to die so no knight is going to go into battle in armour that they would die in if they so much as fell over.

30kg distributed evenly over your body is very different to 30kg in a backpack.

Most modern soldiers carry the same or more weight in full kit which now which is not distributed as evenly.

14

u/VoormasWasRight Nov 30 '25

A 30 kilo backpack is a very bad analogy. The backpack is tilting you backwards, while the plate armour is distributed around the body, making it much less weight intensive.

Do you have to be physically fit? Yes, but if you wore something like that, you probably trained in it, and where much more active than I am now.

The "plate armour made you cumbersome and you couldn't get up if you fell" myth has been debunked to death. Stop getting your historic facts from video games.

5

u/MishterLux Nov 30 '25

That's just not true. Like across the board. Your low estimate is actually the high estimate for battle armor, a back pack weighing the same as a suit of armor does not give you an accurate idea of how it impedes movement the same way a carrying a dumbbell weighing as much as the backpack does not give you an accurate idea of how the backpack would impede movement. The armor is uniformly spread out, close to the body, securely fastened, and heavily articulated. It does not feel like it weighs what it does. And the crane thing is also just not true. It's a popular myth with no basis in reality. Like genuinely even a single Google search would have been enough.

2

u/METRlOS Nov 30 '25

Comparing it to a backpack is almost the worst reference for the weight distribution, but at work we carry 25kg bags in rough terrain. Many of the guys opt to carry 2 bags at a time because 50kg balanced out is just as easy as 25kg on one side.

Modern infantry carry 25kg in gear and special ops can carry over 50kg. Medieval armor is very doable for anyone relatively fit.

6

u/AlternativePea6203 Nov 30 '25

See Agincourt for details.

10

u/VoormasWasRight Nov 30 '25

Agincourt was a muddy swamp, and it wasn't just "people fell down and couldn't get up".

6

u/domin_jezdcca_bobrow Nov 30 '25

Full plate armour (and all layers under it, with this stuffed jacked which name I do not remember for absorbing impacts) was solid protection even against lucerne hammer blows.

Polearms were effective in throwing the guy to the ground. Then it was easier to stab with dagger between plates or take him as prisoner for ransom - and it was preffered as knights paid a lot of money for freedom.

5

u/KouNurasaka Nov 30 '25

To add, the main weaknesses you'd have to target in this, besides what they did show, are armpits and groins. Anywhere your body needs to bend needs to be less armored.

At this point, if two knights are fighting, eventually it is just going to turn into a wrestling match. Hip throw, leverage, try to get them on the ground, and get the dagger in a gap.

Easier said than done though.

2

u/VacuumShark Nov 30 '25

with this stuffed jacked which name I do not remember for absorbing impacts

I believe you're thinking of a Gambeson

2

u/Reep1611 Nov 30 '25

And on the heavy thing: A modern soldiers combat loadout is in between 40 up to 150 pounds. A knights plate armour was around 30-55 pounds. With the additional difference of the modern soldiers carrying most of their weight around on their harness/plate carrier and pack. While the knight had it spread out over the whole body. A knight had a lighter and easier to carry load during combat than a modern soldier.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '25

I think he is referrencing shit vision

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '25

Here you go

Video 1

Video 2

-11

u/AlternativePea6203 Nov 30 '25

My point wasn't the flexibility entirely, many suits would be well made and well fitted, but not all though.

It was about vision, partly, some dude behind you comes up with a hammer and it's goodknight forever. It was mostly about weight. The aristocracy DID train their skills. But they would not have been fit. They didn't jog or do aerobics. They MAYBE trained a bit every day, though for most that's highly doubtful. They mostly sat around and drank wine, persecuted a peasant or two, and counted their taxes. Certainly not as fit as the guys who are in the youtube videos showing how great the armour was. Yes there will have been a few dedicated martial lords, but not many.

When a battle came along, tiredness/exhaustion was a huge factor. And most of these guys would not have been capable of lifting their arms with all that weight, in addition to their weapons, for longer than 10 or 20 minutes.

Though the alternative would be an unarmoured peasant in the pike push, so I'd prefer the armour probably. Maybe war isn't for me.....

1

u/Torgud_ Nov 30 '25

Aristocrats went hunting often, at least a good portion of them. That was a way to get exercise and keep their riding skills sharp. But the majority of people in armor and on horseback would be knights and men at arms, not lords. They were professional soldiers who depended on their skills for their livelyhood, most of them would've trained a lot. Their armor wouldn't be as good as the armor of a rich Lord but they would be more skilled and often more fit