Primed and Loaded | Soldiers of the Virginia Company 

That makes sense. It's basically "new" warfare (for the time), with armies in open field, versus older style warfare with sneak attacks and ambushes in forests. Basic rule of war, fight on your terms when possible.

​@@fredfry5100 Pitched battles go all the way back to ancient times. Absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Pitched battles were not in the slightest "new" in that era.

I love this era, essentially knights with guns I love to see armor and guns together

And this is the dilemma of film and tv. Film has to entertain while hopefully turning a profit. While historic films will tend to compress characters, time and historic events to move the story along in an allotted timeframe often without the nuance of the history. Now in Virginia we do know that one carpenter was an ensign and another served as a sergeant. But one of the more fascinating accounts of fighting comes to us from George Percy, probably when he came to command in Virginia in 1611, after the departures of Lord de la Warr and Sir Thomas Gates and before the arrival of Sir Thomas Dale . Percy writes, "And Lieutenant Puttocke, encountering with one of the savages hand to fist, grappled with him and stabbed him to death with his poniard." Later Percy writes about Puttocke again -- "After my lord's departure, the Indians did fall to their wonted practice again, coming one evening late, and called at out block house. The which when I understood, I presently sent to Lieutenant Puttocke who commanded there that he should by no means stir out of the blockhouse, but to keep an exceeding careful guard and watches. And to strengthen him, I sent him more men to double his guard, again expressly giving him charge that he should not go out of the blockhouse upon any terms whatsoever, promising him that the next morning I would send him a convenient number of men to discover what they were and of what strength which had so called them." "But Lieutenant Puttocke, being called again early the next morning before our watch was discharged in the for, contrary to my command, and most unadvisedly, did go out of the blockhouse with the small number of men he had, showing more valor than will, more fury than judgement. And some few Indians being in show, he followed them without apprehension and of the which ensued. For the savages still retiring, he followed them until they brought him into their ambuscado where, being five or six hundreth of savages, let fly their arrows as thick as hail amongst our handful of men and defeated and cut them all off in a moment, the arrows which they had shot being so many in number that the ground thereabouts was almost covered in them." Puttocke was a veteran of service in the Low Countries, but met his end in Virginia.

It's not just colonists either - Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot make European regulars out to be basically helpless against anyone with a knife and a tomahawk, whereas in reality we know that native peoples and colonial militias were extremely wary of getting to close quarters with regulars who had both bayonet and hanger. That was the whole point of the asymmetric tactics they used - avoiding the worst effects of volley fire, and avoiding getting into a melee.

I concur. What should be understood is that native peoples were actually very casualty adverse and did not get into melee unless they had a clear advantage. Also, the tomahawk was not a super weapon and that a steady line of regulars with musket and bayonet had the advantage.

Keep in mind it was made by people who are looking back to about the time of THEIR great grandfather for best suitable inspiration as to colonists fighting natives, and during said time there was a lot less melee and a lot more range. Keep in mind the natives actually had shields and armor too but it wouldn't protect them at all from muskets while their enemies had shields and armor that did. So swords, pikes, bayonets, yes. About as well as anything a peasant in Europe can stitch together with cloth hide and wood at least. But against steel plate or chainmail their best bet was to try to take the battle to muddy or wet ground where swimming would be difficult.

@@biggiouschinnus7489 very true. Historically, in the Revolution the British often actively sought to engage the Americans in melee combat. The reason was that most Americans lacked bayonets, whereas the British regulars trained extensively with theirs. Often the charge of a British unit with bayonets was enough to send colonial militia (and some Continental regulars) fleeing from the battlefield. These tactics were costly in some instances (especially when the Americans were able to entrench such as Bunker Hill), but they also delivered many stunning victories. The US creation myth relies heavily on a lot of stories and myths. For example, the idea of the Americans fighting in dispersed, small groups of snipers is pretty much a myth. Even at Lexington and Concord, contemporary US accounts tell of how 'we came upon them and gave them a volley', indicating that the minutemen largely emulated British tactics. In fact, there are far more recorded instances of US militia trying to take the field in the European fashion and getting roundly trounced for it. In most instances were militia fought well against the British they were entrenched, with the British attacking frontally. Militia was in an odd spot. They were not effective against British regulars in an open battle, but they often struggled against the British in wilderness warfare because they were outclassed by the Native American warriors that fought with the British. A key example is the Northern Campaign that led to Burgoyne's defeat at Saratoga. A huge factor that American historians often overlook is the loss of Burgoyne's native allies, who deserted him and essentially left his army without an effective scouting force. The myth of militia, part-time soldiers winning our independence was pushed heavily by the New England faction in the Continental Congress and driven by a strong streak of anti-Federalism. The New England delegates (especially from MA) were very powerful at that time and very anti-Federal. They strongly opposed the formation of a national army or navy, viewing both as being an existential threat to liberty. Therefore, to answer the question of national defense, they argued that militia were adequate and created these myths to further their political goal. Obviously, they ultimately failed but the myth lives on. The fact that we now have a large and powerful national military is really the evidence that the militia myth is just that, a cozy founding myth for our country. The Revolution was really won due to foreign involvement (the entry of France and Spain to the war made it global for the British and sapped their resources) and the evolution of the Continental Army to a European-style professional organization.

Thank you!

Sure, mail was still used but by the late 16th century it was being mostly used by the likes of Scots or northern English Boarder Reivers. So, in many ways Virginia became a place to dump old mail because it remained effective against arrows.

Mail was used in the east up to ww1

Chainmail is still used in industrial settings today to shield against flying debris. When I was in China I saw a huge railroad roadbed ballast crusher/spreader unit pulled by two diesel locomotives trundle past us waiting for an overnight train from Shanghai to Beijing. The ballast crusher had sheets of chainmail on it's engine intakes as well as over the ports from where the crushed ballast pebbles are sprayed onto the tracks. The mail keeps the stream of high velocity ballast aimed at one direction and prevent loose pieces from hitting the workers on the engine or people along the tracks on the platform.

There were Khevsur warriors who were apparently in WW1 . they are an ethnic group from the caucuses in georgia i think. They were clad in mail armor and resembled soldiers from the 1600s eastern europe.

and this is kinda pike and shot post pike and shot lol

@@operator9858 and also pre-pike and shot! with the chainmail at least

targeteer (targe/target = round shield)

The correct terminology is “Targeteer”, but these guys were not unique to English forces in the colonies. A century earlier, the same types of troops were used by the Spanish conquistadors. Like the targeteers are named after the target shield, their Spanish counterparts were known as “Rodeleros”; named after the Spanish and Italian name for the target shield, the rotella. On the continent, their job was to hack away at enemy pike formations, and they were actually an attempt to revive the old Roman legion infantry armed with sword and shield. Yet since they were named after their shields, they kind of were more like 16th century revivals of hoplites, but with their primary weapon being the sword instead of a spear.

Yep this is also where we get the Irish and Scottish "Targe" shields. Which were primarily layers of wood, but the word has the same root. Are you a published writer? Or just for your own enjoyment?

​@@charlesdeleo4608 There is also Portuguese rodeleros and Dutch randacier

"musket punk" does that entail mohawk wearing punk rockers shooting papists with matchlocks?

In central Europe polish cavalrymen (considered the best cavalry of the period - or even the best cavalry period) called "pancerni" (means "armored" - cavalry lighter than famous winged hussars) used chainmail and turkish shields made of rope and metal umbo (called "kałkan") well until the end of XVII century. Their usual opponents were Tatars, Muscovites, Cossacks and Turks. Tatars were known for using bows.

Thanks!

Thank you very much, and you are welcome!

Thanks! We are gland you liked the video.

Thanks for checking us out and we're glad you enjoyed the video!

Thanks and you're welcome!

You're welcome!

Thank you!

Yes, there are going to be many parallels, especially with a number of officers that served in Virginia being veterans of service in Ireland and the Low Countries. What is also fascinating is the connection of some of the early Virginia officers through Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. Both Charles Blount, 8th Baron Mountjoy and Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr would serve in Ireland and both would survive the taint of their association and service with Essex after his failed rebellion against Queen Elizabeth. Mountjoy would replace Essex in Ireland becoming Lord Deputy in 1600 and eventually married Essex's sister Lady Penelope, while Lord de la Warr arrived in Virginia as Governor in 1610. In 1597 Mountjoy served in an expedition led by Essex and Sir Walter Raleigh against the Portuguese-held Azores. Another officer on this expedition was Sir Thomas Gates, who would sail for Virginia in 1609 to become the Lieutenant General/Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Sir Thomas Dale who arrived in Virginia in 1611 as Marshall of Virginia, led a company in Ireland under Essex, and also survived his association with Essex after Essex's failed rebellion. With the leadership of de la Warr, Gates and Dale and their connections to Mountjoy and Essex it is easy to understand where the influences came from.

@@JYFMuseums Thank you for the response! That is a truly fascinating connection I was totally unaware of, but it partly explains a lot of the tactics and military equipment utilized in the early days of the Colony. Seems like an excellent topic for a thesis if there are any students of military history around...

Thanks for the question. Currently there's no mention of greatswords in the records or accounts from Virginia and nothing turned up in the archaeology.

A good reason this probably wasn't used is that greatswords (zweihanders) were mostly employed to disrupt pike squares- not that useful against an enemy that isn't using a pike square to begin with.

You're welcome!

Thanks!

We're glad that you like them!

@@JYFMuseums very much so. Are you associated with the Jamestown museum? It's on my summer vacation list. Looks like it's in the background in a few shots.

@Randall Moffett Our channel is the RU-vid channel of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation and its two museum, Jamestown Settlement and the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown. Our neighbors include the Colonial National Historic Park, which operates the Yorktown Battlefield, the Colonial Parkway, and Historic Jamestowne -- operated jointly with Preservation Virginia,

We hope this helps, this is a list of engagements and English losses identified by J. Frederick Fausz in his article AN "ABUNDANCE OF BLOOD SHED ON BOTH SIDES" England's First Indian War, 1609-1614 found in "The Virginia Magazine OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY" from January 1990 VOL. 98 NO. 1 1 Aug.-Oct. 1609 Siege at Nansemond -- Percy, Martin troops expelled, 50 men lost 2 Aug.-Oct. 1609 Siege at Nonsuch -- F. West troops expelled, 50 men lost 3 Sept.? 1609 Ambush of Bermuda Shallop -- Ravens and crew slain, 10 men lost 4 Nov. 1609 Ambush of Ratcliffe -- Ratcliffe expedition expelled, 33 men lost 5 Nov. 1609 Patawomec Murders -- F. West and crew deserted 6 Nov. 1609-May 1610 Siege of Jamestown Percy's James Fort garrison reduced, 110 [+?] men lost 7 9 July 1610 Battle of Kecoughtan -- 1st English conquest (Gates) no men lost 8 Mid-July 1610 Raid on Blockhouse -- Attackers repulsed, 4 men lost 9 10 Aug. 1610 Battle of Paspahegh -- Percy burned village, took corn, no men lost 10 11 Aug. 1610 Raid on Chickahominy -- Davis burned village, took corn, no men lost 11 Mid-Aug. 1610 Raid on Warraskoyac -- Brewster, Argali took corn, no men lost 12 Nov. 1610 Appomattoc Ambush -- English miners slaughtered, 14 men lost 13 Nov. 1610 Raid on Appomattoc -- Brewster, Yeardley avenged ambush, no men lost 14 Winter 1611 Fort La Warr Siege -- Lord De La Warr expedition expelled, 32 men lost 15 Feb.? 1611 2d Raid on Blockhouse -- Attackers repulsed, 2 men lost 16 29 Mar. 1611 Battle of Blockhouse -- Garrison annihilated, 20 men lost 17 June 1611 Battle of Nansemond -- 2d English conquest (Dale), no men lost 18 Sept-Dec. 1611 Battle of Henrico -- 3d English conquest (Gates, Dale), 15 men lost 19 Dec 1611 Battle of Appomattoc -- 4th English conquest, losses ? 20 Mar. 1614 York River Invasion -- Standoff (Dale, Argall), no men lost

Sure. Buffcoats are very new in the early-17th century not common, and had not yet reached the level of fashion and use that they had in the mid-century. By mid-century a buffcoat could be worn as a light armor for cavalry meant only to protect from glancing blows, or worn under a breast and back. The early-17th century garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and the predecessor to the buffcoat would be the jerkin -- www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/leather-jerkin-well-examined fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/jerkin/ www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php

Thanks!

Yes his outfit is the spanish soldier

Tercios

Sure, all of the European powers were influenced by the Spanish Tercios. Though the English, as Dutch allies, were further influenced by the Dutch military reforms and the Dutch response to the Tercio, and their own experiences with small unit actions in Ireland. Of interest to you might be the volume -- ==>"Virginia Richly Valued, by the description of the maine land of Florida, her next neighbour out of the foure yeers continuall trauell and discourie, for aboue one thousand miles east and west, of Ferdinando de Soto, and six hundred able men in his companie. Wherein are truly obserued the riches and fertilitie of thos parts, abounding with things necessarie, pleasant, and profitable for the life of man: with the natures and dispositions of the inhabitants. Written by a Portugall gentleman of Eluas, emploied in all action, and translated out of Portugese by Richard Hakluyt. At London: Printed by Felix Kyngston for Matthew Lownes, and are to be sold at the signe of the Bishops head in Pauls Churchyard, 1609."

@@jamesread1607 wow!! That’s pretty cool! I took general history as one of my Associates in college, and I was planning on someday being a history teacher, and I am grateful that you put that page up. Thank you from one history student to another.

@@emperorconstantine1.361 England's shift from Bill and bow to pike and shot wasn't overnight. Pikemen were initially mercenary troops from the Continent, Flemish and German initially and then German Landsknects. The Scots were initially supplied with pike by the French for the campaign that ended at Flodden Field. Their traditional weapon was the long spear, and some authors believe they became better pikermen than the English. English pike and shot followed, but units of both Bill and bow were retained. Pikes were more expensive to produce than Bills, which could be produced by local blacksmiths. Firearms were perhaps bought in from Spain and Italy. The English retained units of both Bill and bow late into the 17th Century, and these would have been attached to units of pike and shot. The Tercio was seem as the ideal, but the Dutch moved towards linear formations perhaps inspired by Classical Roman formations. As many men from British and Ireland fought on the Continent they would have had first hand experience of the Tercio. The side they took was largely down to their religion and so many English fought with the Protestant Dutch armies ( Guy Fawkes was a Catholic and so fought for the Spanish) These developments and innovations continued through Gustavus Adolphus and into the musket drills of the 18th Century such as English firing by platoons.

Tercio tactics. A word that was taken from the old roman legions. In fact, in Rome and the Vaticano said that the spanish empire were the heirs of the roman empire. Even thought that actually in Spain they still using the "tercio" word to refeer to military regiments, like the four Tercios of the spanish Legion (light infantry/motorized in Ceuta and Melilla. Two of them become a brigade located in Ronda, Malaga (beautyful ancient city). There are also "tercio de Armada" in the spanish marine brigade, the part that forms the three reinforced disembarc battalions, another in the airborne brigade,.....we still using that word, by other way and also very famous in Belgium or Holland, because of the famous battles that the spanish empire had there.

Thank you very much! We're glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks!

That we associate the morion helmet with the Spanish conquistador, has much to do with artwork of the 19th century used to illustrate historical stories as well as 20th century films, such as Henry King’s 1947 film Captain from Castile with Tyrone Power. The origination of the morion is clouded in history, but it is a helmet fashion developed about the 1540s, well after the early-16th century Spanish conquests of the Americas. While the origination of the helmet may be obscured, it was a style that crossed national boundaries throughout Europe. It is not necessarily that the combed morion that Charles is wearing would be Spanish in origin, it is that the fashion of the helmet’s styling was extremely popular across Europe. Much of the fashion of Europe’s armor was set in Milanese or Augsburg armoring shops and it is from there that the stylings of armor generally spread. When we think of Greenwich armor fashion, it was a hybrid of Milanese and Augsburg armors, as it was these armorers that Henry VIII first employed when we established the Royal Armories.

Tobias, thanks for the question. Its fascinating the statements made by some about how heavy or cumbersome something like armour is and yet there's all to often a lack of actual exposure. In Virginia at least the advantage of the metal target would be its capability to turn away an arrow or take the blow of a war club. This particular quote comes from George Percy and his "Observations gathered out of a discourse of the plantation of the southern colony in Virginia by the English, 1606" as printed in Edward Haile's Jamestown Narratives and makes reference to a steel target -- "One of our gentlemen having a target which he trusted in, thinking it would bear out a flight-shot, he set it up against a tree, willing one of the savages to shoot; who took from his back an arrow of an ell long, drew it strongly in his bow, shoots the target a foot thorough or better, which was strange, being that a pistol could not pierce it. We, seeing the force of his bow, afterwards set him up a steel target; he shot again and burst his arrow all to pieces; he presently pulled out another arrow and bit it in his teeth, and seemed to be in a great rage, so he went away in great anger." The one pierced through is accepted to be most likely a leather and wood target.

@@JYFMuseums Is there any particular reason why this tradeoff was preferred here, when in most place at most time, it wasn't? Were native archers just especially strong, even compared to European ones?

@Tobias Hagström Well, the historical issue with the prevalence of metal shields wasn't about how heavy they were - a matter often ridiculously exaggerated - but much more to do with the state of metals processing and manufacturing in various periods of history. In much of history metals are produced in small amounts with much specialized labor and time; in small pieces that need to be pieced together to make a larger pieces; and at great expense. Comparatively, wooden shields were easier to manufacture, cheaper to produce and were very effective at what they were expected to do on a battlefield. By the 16th century Europe has reached the modern age and metals processing has reached a proto-industrial stage. With the advent of blast furnaces, fining forges and battery mills, metals like iron can be produced in larger volumes and made into larger iron sheets. The ability to produce a larger sheet means that breast or back plates could be produced with fewer parts pieced or riveted together. They can be made from single sheets. The shield too could now be produced from a single sheet of iron, simply by cutting a disk and dishing the material. Now metal shields were the new "high tech" technology that was somewhat affordable and effective on the battlefield. The issue isn't one of weight but, a matter of the technological advance of metals processing. Advances that coincide with the rise of firearms, the decline of mail armour, and the rise of plate armour.

@@JYFMuseums That's very interesting, thank you!

@Tobias Hagström If you have an interest in things armour, you may also be interested in the book, The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period. By Alan R. Williams

Thanks!

I would guess that those could be from the old stock that was left in the deposit from previous century...

The shirt of mail is a reproduction made at Jamestown Settlement. It was the cheapest armor the Virginia Company could buy.

Shirts of mail were most likely purchased from available and unused stores of mail in England and shipped by the Virginia Company to the colony. Probably the best documented supply of mail was after the March 1622 Massacre, with the arrival in 1623 of 400 shirts of mail for the Company's use, taken from the Tower of London and sent to Virginia by the Crown. Note that while this video focused on plate and mail, other amours in use in Virginia included, quilted coats, jack coats, and brigandine.

@@jamesread1607 Not directly related, but the Spaniards at the same time in what is New Mexico today were producing scale armour. It's unusual because scale was incredibly uncommon in Europe and the method of manufacturing shows that it was tinned meaning it was unlikely to be made by natives and the Reconquista long enough ago to not be captured from muslims; thus it is thought that this was something being produced by Spanish colonists locally in their simple forges, as opposed to the more advanced ones back in Europe, for much the same reason that Jamestown was ordering outdated armour from the Tower of London.

One of the more fascinating accounts of fighting comes to us from George Percy, probably when he came to command in Virginia in 1611, after the departures of Lord de la Warr and Sir Thomas Gates and before the arrival of Sir Thomas Dale . Percy writes, "And Lieutenant Puttocke, encountering with one of the savages hand to fist, grappled with him and stabbed him to death with his poniard." Later Percy writes about Puttocke again -- "After my lord's departure, the Indians did fall to their wonted practice again, coming one evening late, and called at out block house. The which when I understood, I presently sent to Lieutenant Puttocke who commanded there that he should by no means stir out of the blockhouse, but to keep an exceeding careful guard and watches. And to strengthen him, I sent him more men to double his guard, again expressly giving him charge that he should not go out of the blockhouse upon any terms whatsoever, promising him that the next morning I would send him a convenient number of men to discover what they were and of what strength which had so called them." "But Lieutenant Puttocke, being called again early the next morning before our watch was discharged in the for, contrary to my command, and most unadvisedly, did go out of the blockhouse with the small number of men he had, showing more valor than will, more fury than judgement. And some few Indians being in show, he followed them without apprehension and of the which ensued. For the savages still retiring, he followed them until they brought him into their ambuscado where, being five or six hundreth of savages, let fly their arrows as thick as hail amongst our handful of men and defeated and cut them all off in a moment, the arrows which they had shot being so many in number that the ground thereabouts was almost covered in them." Do keep a few thing in mind though. Fights in Virginia are usually involved dozens of men, maybe even a few hundred, but these are not cases of significantly outnumbered forces. Puttocke being notable. In Europe not all infantry are armored - pikemen are, but the shot is not. Those infantry that were armored did not wear armor on their legs and face. The basic infantry armor includes breast, back, tassels and a helmet. That there was no armor on their legs or face did not mean they're underarmored. What sets Virginia apart is that everyman was armored, and to have simply a breast, back and tassels provides sufficient protection to the most vital areas of the body. Armor was even modified to allow more effective use of armor and muskets together. Except for Lieutenant Puttocke, the English understood not to chase the Powhatan off into the woods. Rather, when the English wanted to bring battle, the ideal was to force a fight out in the open to take advantage of the effective range of the muskets. To accomplish this the English would move soldiers by ship on the rivers and assault Powhatan towns from the rivers.

We're glad you enjoyed it. Thanks!

Спасибо за подписку!

The Spanish colonization of the Americas would be 1493 to 1898, but the age of the Conquistador and the Spanish conquest of the Americas is often understood to take place from 1493 through to about 1540. The equipment of the Spanish soldier in the Americas in that timeframe is going to be from the early-16th century. The kettle helmet of the late 15th and early 16th centuries would likely be a common style in use by the Spanish. The cabasset and morion helmets worn in our video are styles that begin to appear in the 1540s late the Spanish conquest. In the early-16th century mail and gambesons were in use along with brigandine. There is about an 75-100 year difference between the arms and armor of the Spanish Conquistador and the Virginia Company soldiers. You may find the book Spanish Arms and Armour, by Albert F. Calvert interesting and a good place to start -- www.gutenberg.org/files/47878/47878-h/47878-h.htm Our only caution is that so many studies tend to focus on the high-end or little used armor such as a boy's armor, in part because so much survives. But this should still be a valuable resource to start with.

Consider that a little bit of artistic license to illustrate and display the arms and armor.

Caleb, two books that you might start with are Elizabeth's Army by C. G. Cruikshank and Soldiers of the Virginia Colony, 1607-1699 by Donald A. Tisdale. These will serve as good starting points on the topic and hopefully lead you to other sources. Also seek out any of the archaeological reports for Martin's hundred by Ivor Noel Hume; Jordan's Journey digs from 1990-1992 by Virginia Commonwealth University; and of course any of the archaeological reports from the Jamestown Rediscovery project lead by Kelso since 1994

A couple additional sources to check out would be William Shea's "The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century" as well as J. Frederick Fausz' article "An Abundance of Bloodshed on Both Sides' England's First Indian War 1609-1614". For information specifically about European warfare of the time, Stephen Bull's "An Historical Guide to Arms & Armor" has a chapter on Renaissance warfare which serves as a good introduction for someone new to the subject. For those seeking a little deeper dive, consider consulting some primary sources written in the time such as Sir Roger Williams', "A Brief Discourse on War" or Henry Hexham's "The first part of the principles of the art military practiced in the warres of the United Netherlands".

@@jamesread1607 Thanks! I will check these out when I get the chance.

@@francismidwinter357 Thanks! I will check these out when I get the chance.

Quilted coats are mentioned in primary sources as one option for armour, along with plate and mail, and most likely manufactured of linen or maybe even hemp. Quilted bases are also mentioned for use with breasts and backs that lacked a set of tassets. The benefit of the quilted coat as an armour, as you indicated, is that the coats could be made in Virginia, from cloth shipped in from England. Other available armours that have also appeared in the archaeological record also include jack coats and brigandine.

@@jamesread1607 thanks

The English did not have access to cotton in the 1600s, but further south the Spanish did and adopted quilted cotton jacks like those used by the Incas. They may also have been used in Mexico as well. In the 18th century Spanish troops were wearing cotton regimentals as well. So were some of the French Colonial troops that made it to Yorktown in 1781.

I'm not convinced anyone wore mail without gambeson.

@@rachdarastrix5251 Well they would've worn something under it, obviously. Can you imagine the chaffing that would come from bare skin against ring mail? Ooooouch. Seriously though, some kind of padding--a heavy shirt or actual gambeson--would've been worn with mail, I'm just not convinced that it was always gambeson. Costs and materials always play a role in outfitting an army and Virginia wasn't yet the cotton-growing center it would be eventually--something I've learned through this and other threads with these videos. From what I gather, it was as much a matter of what's available right now as anything.

It was a pistol with a snaphaunce ignition system -- an early flint type system. To learn more about the snaphaunce check out Brian's video on the snaphaunce -- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VnG_EJMuzi8.html The pistol would not have been cheap, but it would not have been rare and a number of pistol parts have been excavated at 17th century Virginia archaeological sites.

It's a one off sword that he purchased a few years ago.

Thanks!

A potential place to start may be "A Brief Discourse of Warre" by Sir Roger Williams quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15466.0001.001/1:4.20?rgn=div2;view=fulltext You might also check out William Shea's "The Virginia Militia in the 17th Century." J. Frederick Fausz's "An 'Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides': England's First Indian War, 1609-1614" from The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 98, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 3-56 (54 pages) Published By: Virginia Historical Society. www.jstor.org/stable/4249117

We don't know who made the sword. It's sort of a one off that was acquired a few years ago.

Hi Dashiell, thank you for your question. The late-16th and early-17th century was a fascinating time with many Italian sword masters like Vincentio Saviolo opening their schools in London. These sword masters were tapping into the growing wealth of the new urban upper class of merchants, masters, & burgesses. These urban elites had already gained the economic power of the rural gentry and were also attempting gain the social power of the gentry. Sending their sons to these Italian schools became fashionable, and a way to project wealth, status, and power. These urban elites were in a sense putting on the airs of gentry by having their sons taught in the Italian way -- swordplay was after all the traditional realm of the gentry. At the same time there were gentlemen like George Silver who pushed back against the Italian schools. He was not a sword master, but like every gentleman he had learned to use a sword as part of his education. Silver supported the native English military arts, while he objected to Italian sword masters, objected to the rapier itself and objected to the methods of the rapier’s use. Silver thought that the rapier was only a weapon suited for a street fight, not a proper battlefield. At the turn of the century nothing is settled and there was no standard. In the Italian schools the various treatises do not agree on a standard grip and each master had their own style they taught. The various masters had to have a distinct and different style to attract students and draw them away from other masters. Some volumes instructed to put one finger over the quillon while others taught to put two fingers over the quillons or even a more forward grip centered on the ricasso. It is only very recently that the index finger over the quillon has come to be viewed as a standard, but it was not viewed as a standard in the late-16th/early-17th century. So, if we use our targeteer as a model, the sword is too short and too broad of a blade to be an Italian rapier; it’s still what a historian may call a sword with a “cut-and-thrust” blade and the guard is meant to evoke the fashion of rather than preform the function of a rapier guard. Also look at the targeteer’s clothing and equipment - nothing indicates that he is gentry or the son of an urban elite, who may have been taught the use of a sword or a rapier as part of their education. He is probably a man of the poor class that has taken up soldiering as a profession for quick money and learned to use the sword on the battlefield.

@@JYFMuseums That's a great answer, thanks!

This episode was filmed at the end of Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation's annual Foods and Feasts event over the Thanksgiving Day weekend, and they're enjoying the remains of some pound cake and peas.

Thank you!

Rotella is the diminutive of the Latin word rota which means wheel. Target is the diminutive targe. Then there is the Spanish adarga for a shield, coming from the Arabic al-daraqa. These are all just words that generally mean shield, with target being in popular use in England. In his treatise on the use of swords in the Paradox of Defense, George Silver refers to the use of swords and targets about 15 times and swords and bucklers 39 times, addresses the differences between the two as well as advantages and disadvantages. He never refers to a rotella. quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A12246.0001.001?view=toc As for padding under the armor, the clothing would be sufficient. Men’s clothing of the early 17th century was built and structured to create a particular silhouette. This structuring used multiple layers of cloth and stiffeners and would have provided a level of padding. Further, buffcoats are very new in the early-17th century not common, and had not yet reached the level of fashion and use that they have in the mid-century. The garment to be worn over the clothing and under the armor and a predecessor to the buffcoat was the jerkin -- www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/leather-jerkin-well-examined fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/jerkin/ www.karlrobinson.co.uk/Gallery%20pages/buff%20jerkin.php

@@JYFMuseumsThank you, and for the links - I will also check my Silver.

Thanks!

If the armor is made for you, you can do almost anything running, fighting, even somersaulting you're just heavier. but not much or less heavy than soldier now with equipment

@@back2basegym729 Most of the equipment besides ammo, sapi plates, and gun is not for fighting. They just transporting to and from base camp.

@MbisonBalrog. We heard you and made a video -- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ROc-kH1_1GY.html Fred and Sam seem to do alright dropping to the ground and getting up.

Pistols were definitely used by infantry in Virginia in the early 17th century. John Smith describes his weapons as "sword, pistol and target". He writes of using a "French pistoll" in combat against the Virginia Indians. In the early 17th century in Virginia, some soldiers were equipped as targeteers. The Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall (published between 1610-1611) describes the equipment of these soldiers as "Hee shall not suffer in his Garrison any Souldier to enter into Guard, or to bee drawne out into the field without being armed according to the Marshals order, which is, ...every Targiteer with his Bases to the small of his legge, and his headpeece, sword and pistoll, or Scuppet provided for that end" Officers had similiar equipment, "And likewise every Officer armed as before, with a firelocke, or Snaphaunse, headpeece, and a Target, onely the Serjeant in Garrison shall use his Halbert, and in field his Snaphaunse and Target" Please note in the video, Charles is using a snaphance pistol.

The archaeology of early 17th century Virginia Company sites, especially that of Jamestown, have turned up numerous pistol parts and intact pistols. John Smith will refer to his use of sword, pistol and shield during his time in Virginia from 1607 to 1609. While Sir Thomas Dale orders that targeteers are properly equipped with sword, pistol and target. The pistol that Charles is displaying is actually a snaphaunce ignition -- so, keep an eye out for videos in the Primed and Loaded series that dive deeper into weapons and warfare.

@@jamesread1607 I ended up chatting with Charles outside of RU-vid about the video and things, so yes very interesting (Jamestown) have found pistol parts and they being mentioned in period sources, very cool. I hadn't realized snaphaunce -pistols- were that "common" in early 1600s (muskets with snapahunce locks are a different story); I had assumed pistols would have been wheel-locks, which just don't seem to be a "common" (or "commoner") item. Either way, it's really great to have not just the written mentions but the artifacts to 'match' up.

@@francismidwinter357 Scuppet from Sclopeta (Latin for Gun)

At the turn of the 17th century nothing is settled, there was no single standard in the Italian schools, the various sword treatises do not agree on a standard grip, and each master had their own style they taught. The various masters had to have a distinct and different style to attract students and draw them away from other masters. Some volumes instructed to put one finger over the quillon while others taught to put two fingers over the quillons or even a more forward grip centered on the ricasso. If we use our targeteer as a model, nothing indicates that he is gentry or the son of an urban elite, who may have been taught the use of a sword or a rapier as part of their education. He is probably a man of the poor class that had taken up soldiering as a profession for quick money and learned to use the sword on the battlefield, lacking the refinement our modern senses expect.

Thanks!

There is poor George Forrest. In his General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles, John Smith wrote, “Here I cannot omit the courage of George Forrest, that had seaventeene Arrowes sticking in him, and one shot through him, yet lived sixe or seaven dayes, as if he had small hurt, then for want of Chirurgery dyed.” Smith addressed the range of the Powhatan archer when he wrote, “…When they come to the place of exercise, every man doth his best to shew his dexteritie, for by their excelling in those quallities, they get their wives. Forty yards will they shoot levell, or very neare the mark, and 120 is their best at Random…” A 450-1000 feet range for a native bow is extremely fantastical. The most effective range of the musket is in its first 100 yards, but that had more to do with the ability and limitations of the individual musketeer. A musket ball will travel several hundreds of yards beyond that first 100 yard range, before the energy bleeds off and gravity takes effect. The velocity of the musket ball may be 800-1300 feet per second while the arrow may be 100-300 fps. When compared to the bow, the musket is going to send a bullet further, faster and harder, with greater energy and impart that energy into the target. The arrow lacks the energy of a musket ball. As far as the defense of armor, the English believed that a breast, back, tassets, and a helmet were sufficient protection, not just with plate, but old armors like mail, brigandine, jack coats, and quilted coats. They not only believed it to be protective but showed how protective it was when in June 1611, Sir Thomas Dale led several companies on campaign against the Nansemond and suffered no losses. Just like the English, the Powhatan were not immune to the stress and anxieties of combat. There is no indication in English accounts that arrow wounds to their extremities increased as they increased their use of armor. No matter what, when aiming for center mass one has the greatest opportunity to strike their target.

Sure. What would you like to know? Brian has a basket hilt and Charles has a sword, what some today might want to call a "cut and thrust" blade on a rapier style hilt.

I suppose just what they're called. I know you guys have all custom weapons from an in house blacksmith, but maybe if there's any historical examples they're based on?@@JYFMuseums

One thing to consider is that so much of today's sword nomenclature is a modern method of differentiating between the various stylings, fashions, and schools of use. We want a typology, when in the early-17th century they're often just called swords, all the while they are calling some swords rapiers, falchions, katzbalger, & etc. Regarding the swords in the video, you can describe both as having "cut & thrust" blades, one with a rapier style hilt and the other with a basket hilt. Both would have been in common use in Europe and these types of sword parts are found in the archaeoloy of Historic Jamestowne's Redisovery Project plus other early-17th century Virginia Company archaeoloy sites. From historic accounts John Smith was known to have carried a falchion.

Thanks alot for your answer! I love 1600's era swords, so many interesting hilts and blade types and sizes, compared to the earlier periods of history. I love your channel, keep up the good work! @@JYFMuseums

The morion may have been a style and fashion that emerged out of the Kingdom of Castile, but it does not stay in Spain. There are some historians that make the claim that the morion is the first international armor. From its emergence about the early-16th century, it spread throughout Europe, from Italy to Sweden and east to Austria, and was commonly made in Milan and Augsburg, the centers of the armor making world. A morion was not necessarily Spanish, and did not identify the wearer as Spanish. French www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/27150 Italian www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/34260 German www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/25386 German www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22236 a helmet from the body guard of the Elector of Saxony Milan wb.britishmuseum.org/MCN3548#1349928001

That is because when we talk of the the Powhatan people, like other North American cultures, they had passed a Neolithic age and had begun a Chalcolithic age.

Curiously, what makes it look Spanish? Afterall much of the fashion and styling is originating in Augsburg or Milan and the fashion that becomes popular spreads across Europe without regard to borders. Spain and England were especially influenced by Augsburg and Milanese armorers. Henry VIII established the Royal Armories by hiring Augsburg and Milanese armorers, creating the hybrid stylings of Greenwich armor fashion. While Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was also Carlos I King of Spain, linking Spain's armor traditions to Augsburg and Milan.

@JYFMuseums Just look up "Tercios españoles"/ Spanish Tercios. You'll be able to appreciate the similarities. The man on the right is wearing a "morrion," a characteristic Spanish helmet from the mid 16th century. I'm no expert on Virginia history but Spain had a heavy influence on half of the US territory for over two centuries. Maybe there's some connection.

Sure, the Spanish used the morion helmet, but it was not uniquely Spanish. The morion style appeared in the 1540s probably coming out of Milanese armories and quickly spread throughout and across Europe. We tend to associate the morion - a distinctly European helmet style - with the Spanish because of 19th century art and 20th century film.

@JYFMuseums Those milanese armories were Spanish at the time. Spanish Tercios were a prominent army between the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe. But yes, you are absolutely right. English also used that helmet, which I didn't know!

They were? What is your criteria for determining how one military arm is more effective than another?

rocks are more effective than bows and arrows

Why, and from where are the English stealing Spanish armor?

Los españoles exploraron y cartografiaron la región de la Bahía de Chesapeake en Virginia entre las décadas de 1520 y 1560, secuestraron a nativos de la región e intentaron una misión jesuita en el río York en 1570. encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/don-luis-de-velasco-paquiquineo-fl-1561-1571/ Pero en este video, Brian y Charles hablan sobre la experiencia inglesa en la Virginia de principios del siglo XVII.