@@FranconiaForever 16th century heraldry. That’s right. This has been common knowledge for 500 years. Dragons have four legs and wings, wyvern’s have two back legs and two front legs that act as wings, and drakes have four legs and no wings.
@@FranconiaForever OK, since you’ve admitted that you’re racist, I’m going to assume it affects your ability to view the world accurately and dismiss your opinion.
@@FranconiaForever well, since you’re admitting you’re racist, I’m gonna go ahead and disregard your opinion because I assume you don’t have the capability to view the world accurately. Also, that included Scottish and Irish heraldry. Do you want to go tell the Scots and the Irish that they’re automatically English? I don’t.
I have been trying to sus out how these weapons were used over the years & my recommendation would be to look at how the Scottish fought with Dirk & Targe as well as looking to how the Persian Qame/Georgian Khanjali were used. From what I can tell these weapons & their systems were derived directly from the same lineage. Tbh everything I can find seems to indicate that almost all these double edged short swords evolved out of the Scythian Akenakes short sword. Which itself mimics copper & stone daggers before it.
I mean, no excuses when u Wyvern a Dragon! Even the Chinese dragons have 4 legs and a chimu to fly, 4 legs plus an organ or limbs that makes them fly has been the depiction of dragons on the 3 major continents. When distinction is made we should respect it! Writers are not historians and they can make mistakes. Trying to find the little thing that can make a mistake acceptable is why we are here today! And not all document from history are valid, cause many has been written by people who were not specialist but just travelers and merchants that heard stories. Or artists that made their own adaptation! Calling a kangaroo a big rat, will never make a kangaroo a rat!
You clearly aren´t a historian either. There is no clear distiction of drakes, dragons and wyverns in historical texts. Chinese dragons are also uncomparable to european dragons, as europ. dragons are evil, destructive monsters while chinese dragons are wise, divine beings
Hide, wood and bone are the earliest of all armours, because those things are what most early cultures would have to hand. Many people forget is that armour is designed specifically to defeat the types of threat faced by those wearing it. Stone or flint weapons are not the same as bronze, iron or steel versions. Not everyone faced sharp metal swords and powerful bows with iron heads. Primitive weapons would be far less developed, as would the armour. But if something CAN be done, humans have a habit of doing it and trying it out, so it's inevitable that leather was used as armour. People used whatever worked for them and simply discarded things that didn't.
You are out of your mind. Got any actual sources on this? Ever try to take a bath in a stream in Germany in the Fall, Winter or Spring? Not happening. Bath houses didn't show up until the Middle Ages were almost over. The reason the church had a problem with bathing is because nudity is a sin.
Female plate Armour is purely a fantasy, ceremonial at best, with zero practicality. Assuming that thew wearer is flat, and of average physical capability, a female wearing 40 pounds of plate Armour, 20 pounds of chainmail, 10 pounds of padding and leather strappings, on top of lugging around a 10-15 pound sword, there is no way a 120-130 pound, 5'0-5'3, is going to be athletic and strong enough to perform in combat. I dont care if she's Ronda Rousey, she would get bodied by your average gas station clerk with a ball peen hammer.
I hope this vid is a joke. Point of fact is that in the prehistoric, as in the present, humans will do the minimal effort required to preserve their own life, followed by the minimal effort to preserve their progeny. This has been universal to Homo sapiens for millions of years, and has no regard for sexual distinction.
In GoT dragons are more like animals, so its ok. But for Elder Scrolls they would look better with 4 legs imo, it makes them look more imposing. Also, I don't care about byological sense here.
Just make sure whenever you're designing things, You never add fantasy elements at all. No more dragons, elves, magic or anything...everything has to be extremely realistic...OK, guys?
I was thinking of making my characters armour depending on the country, girls in One get classic upper breast armor while the other country gets boob-plate armor as in real life, different countries got different armor. However, no one gets to pick♀️ armour. Not even the vain women as you can tell in real life people usually seem to have the exact same armor meaning that this was their uniform. So, a vain caption may not be able to choose unless they have inquired from the king and the King May respond "well what do you have to look pretty for? You're going out to kill people!" So everyone may get the exact same armor. However if we're thinking about different types of armor some people when they went out to a war hardly had any clothes on and would just go out with weapons but no armor to protect themselves. Americans wear camouflage but no steel to keep anything from attacking us you may have bulletproof vest but it doesn't cover our entire body. The skimpy girl armour is more likely used in areas that are tribal, not much steel in the area. Stone and wooden tools are used since they are mostly available. The reason I say that is because when I see tribal warriors they seem to have not a lot of clothing. However they have arrows. A projectile that allows you to be far from the enemy and shoot it. Like the American armor we wear we have projectiles that shoot far off so that we don't have to be really close to our enemy, it helps because the armour is not stainless steel. However, tribal communities will probably arm themselves with wood or stone if SOME forethought is put into their war outfits.
Any armour showing skin is a terrible idea, the only armour you could use is unbreakable glass and a strong man cracked that (He was known as the strongest man in the world) so that's a bad idea if the enemy is especially strong (he used a square strong hammer) The best armor is the men's and women's classic armour mixed but more shapely so it isn't too heavy. In the Bible, Daniel has to remove his armor because it was too heavy to work in, you HAVE to factor weight and body type
1)Try using a background music to help reduce the background noise. 2) the points in which you stutter cut them out and replace them. Overall the video is nice and i really appreciate the content however you need to make it make it more than just plain reading
i don't like your tipical female armor (i like normal medieval armor sometimes with a "modern" paint but with the same shape) but i have to comment that the "tank" armor that males generally use are even worse.
I am a long-time sword collector, with a pretty sizeable collection of swords ranging from inexpensive 'tactical'-type swords to authentic and limited-edition weapons. I own this sword and, to be honest, I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it is typical of many of the swords manufactured in Pakistan and India (where this particular sword comes from). In other words, some of its materials and craftsmanship come off as shoddy, or downright cheap. For example, the wrap on the handle is executed pretty poorly, and mine had to be glued right out of the box. The scabbard seems somewhat flimsy as well, and there are blemishes on the chape. The 'frog' included with the sword is pretty ridiculous, and I threw mine right into the trash, in favor of a traditional leather frog or integrated sword belt. There are various minor flaws throughout. However, with that said, there are a number of things I like. First, my impression of this sword is that it is very practical. It's not a showpiece, but a working sword. The blade is super-sharp, and although thin, seems both flexible and strong (as evidenced in this, and other videos). I really like both the balance and the weight of the sword. Put another way, out of all the many swords in my collection, this would be among my top 5 that I would grab in an actual life-or-death combat situation. That is saying a lot, as I have some very deadly pieces. Additionally, I'll say that I changed the appearance of this sword immediately, and I recommend the same to anyone purchasing it. The sword comes with a horrible blackened finish which, once again, is executed quite poorly. However, it is easily removed with Loctite Naval Jelly Rust Remover. You just cover the blade, guard, pommel, and fittings on the scabbard with that pink goo and leave it for 5 to 10 minutes and it comes right off. Once you take off that horrible black stuff, you can polish up the blade pretty nicely, so it actually looks like a respectable Frankish ('Viking') sword. Mine now has a blade that has a polished steel (not mirror finish) look that I like quite nicely. With a little work, this piece is easily transformed into something you could actually envision an 8th Century warrior carrying around. Ultimately, the real question is whether the sword is worth what you pay for it. That, I am not so sure about. I bought mine through Kult of Athena (my favorite sword outlet) for around $325. That is neither too pricey, nor cheap, and, to be honest, I really question whether or not I could have gotten more 'bang for my buck' in purchasing another weapon. Still, I am overall happy with the piece. It (now) looks very nice. It's highly functional, and respectable. So, those are my two cents...
They aren’t dragons they are 100% wyverns True Dragons have 4 legs and 2 wings Wyverns only have 2 Smaug is also a Dragon but he had a Wyvern-like characteristics Drogon, Rhaegal and Viserion is completely a wyvern And draco from dragonheart is a True Dragon
@@TheCosmicGuy0111 saying a wyvern is a type of dragon is like saying a square is a rectangle. It’s true, but a rectangle isn’t a square, in the same breath a dragon isn’t a wyvern.
@@TheCosmicGuy0111 not really a great comparison, wyverns are smaller, less powerful, less intelligent and less significant in most folklore, they usually can't spit fire or do magic (dragons do, in fact have magical abilities in original folklore, for example they enchanted their riches to not melt) it's like comparing a house cat to a tiger that can speak, spew fire and cast spells, it's just wrong.
@@TheCosmicGuy0111 not to mention that dragons have actual meaning in folklore while wyverns only exist because archeologists were confused by various dinos dying close to each other.
And your citations are what, exactly? Why do almost 1/2 of all ceremonial graves for big-game hunters from 8000 years ago contain women (who prove hunting and battle injuries btw)? What about ancient men who stayed behind because they enjoyed other tasks more? I think you might wanna check out paleoanthropology before making assumptions based on meme factoids.
Out of only 27 sites they found 11 that also had at least 1 woman. All this shows is that in the early migration of humans in the Americas, some tribes may have allowed atypical gender roles for women. Men are biologically superior at orientation cause they evolved from hunting roles. Women are biologically superior at colour distinction cause they evolved from collecting fruits. The biology and evolution doesn't lie about our typical roles in prehistory.
@@MustardSkaven While I don't doubt that the sexes tended to do things differently, I am not sure if this meant that gatherers wouldn't hunt and vice versa. Pragmatically speaking, it would be wise for a woman who gathers to still know how to hunt or at least fight (for instance, when assisting her mate take down a tough game or hunting for him when he is sick or injured (or if she is completely alone). It doesn't have to be big game as she could come across, say, a squirrel as she gathers berries and decides to bring an extra treat. She also may need to defend herself or her group in case of an attack). As for men, I could also see them gathering for a variety of reasons (wanting to take it easy with their energy (like if they are tired, sick, or injured), wanting to take opportunity, etc.) I am not arguing that gender roles did not exist, I'm just not sure if they are indicative that men and women rarely shared each other's activities (i.e. a typical male can be 70% hunter 30% gatherer while the female counterpart can be 75% gatherer and 25% hunter).
@@cadethumann8605 People lived in tribes. If a male was sick the other males pitched in. There is no reason to put females (reproduction) in danger hunting large game. Ancient people also had gender roles. It's reasonable they would be mocked for doing a female job like picking berries. In evolution we also see the results of females picking fruits and males hunting (colour recognition and orientation).
@@MustardSkaven Why would a male be mocked for picking berries? What if he is feeling weak or wants to take a breather from extraneous activity? Even a great warrior needs to take it easy every once and a while. As for women, while it is preferable to send other men, there are still instances where a women should know how to hunt or defend themselves. From what I've read and heard about, there had been various instances of women hunting such as setting up traps or assisting men directly.
@@MustardSkaven I thought that gender roles in the past would be somewhat flexible with everyone being open to changing/sharing tasks. I mean, as a man myself, even if I didn't want to risk my women, I'd want them to know how tonget tough when goings get tough. And for my other men, I'd want them to take it easy and pace themselves whilst still being productive (they can also serve as extra protection for women who gather).
Fascinating! I just saw a documentary that showed how these bowls were found discarded in all directions from the Tower of Babel in Erud (sp?), which gives credence to the Biblical story of people being scattered from a starting point over a short period of time. Thanks for bringing this to life :)
High heels would actually make sense for a knight (regardless of gender) who was mounted. High heels were invented specifically for use when mounted, so your feet could grip the stirrups. They were first worn by men for riding, then were adopted by women for fashion.
