Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Scientists Said WHAT?!" video.

"Plate armour didn't offer full protection. There were gaps where the wearer could get stabbed. Therefore it would've been better wearing no armour at all! So you can get stabbed anywhere on the body instead!" Derp, logic?
1500
Morrigi192: Indeed. Modern soldier gear places most of the weight on your shoulders. It sucks that makers of tactical vests designed to carry armor plates have all completely missed the importance of focusing the weight on the wearers hips like medieval full plate armour did.
54
Kermeet Frug: exactly. Also, there's a tactical advantage for the wearer. He knows where the weakpoints in his armour are, so he knows which attacks he needs to protect himself from and which attacks and feints he can pretty much ignore and just power through. A person wearing no armour at all doesn't have that advantage. That person has to be on his guard against EVERY attack, because even small cuts and blows could be deadly (even if they don't kill him outright, the pain, shock and blood loss will most likely affect the victims balance and fighting stance, which will make it even easier for his opponent to finish him off) And if you have to be on your guard for every kind of attack, because any impact could lead to your death, it also means you're more susceptible to feints, which could also lead to your death since the purpose of a feint is to lure your opponent off balance and deliver a follow up killing blow.
46
Jake4595: Yeah I know. Which just confirms that it's better to wear armour and know where your weak spots are, than wearing no armour and basically make your entire body into one giant weak spot.
3
"Marching with 50 kilograms of armour" Ok, not only is that completely false based on the fact that battlefield plate armour did NOT weigh 50 kilograms but a lot less. But marching and fighting with 50 kilograms of extra weight on your body is not that big of a deal. Modern soldiers in certain units have to carry nearly 50 kilograms of gear and weapons all the time, while marching and fighting. Ask a designated light machinegunner or anti-tank weapon specialist in a special forces unit. (special forces like recon units usually have to carry a lot more gear than regular infantry since their missions often require them to work independently of the larger force, being cut off from regular supplies and logistics for days at a time so they have to carry everything they need to eat, sleep, drink, protect themselves from hostile weather conditions, NBC-attacks, treat injuries and medical problems, tools, weapons, ammo which adds up to a huge amount of weight) If you asked the operator of a recoilless rifle anti-tank weapon he'd probably be happy if all he had to carry was. some puny ass plate armour, because what he has to carry now almost weigh twice as much. :P
2
Averakair: Whose picture?
1
DragonMastrNova: I kind of like the Victorian era actually. People really knew how to dress properly back then. Everybody looks like fucking slobs or hipsters nowadays. Plus, the Victorian Era was kind of the heyday of gothic horror amd gothic fiction, which is awesome.
1
Dhalin: No, but the type of dress you refer to (at least the wayI picture it from your description) is reminiscent of another stylish couple of decades (namely the 1920's to the 1950's) I usually wear a long black coat myself, coupled with a black fedora hat when I go outside. My point about people looking like slobs is what passes as "fashion" today. It's like people go out of their way to look like drug addicts, homeless people, street walkers or two-bit whiskey lawyers (like that dreadful habit of disrespecting a proper suit by wearing a jacket with a pair of fucking washed out blue jeans, or wearing a jacket and shirt without a necktie or bowtie) You wouldn't see a self-respecting gentleman of the Victorian Era or the 1920's leave his house without a necktie or bowtie with his shirt and suit, that's for damn sure.
1
Kriegerdammerung: Well women are pretty much golddiggers nowadays as well, so not much have changed in that regard. Sure you might snag a naive, young girl in her teens or just after teenager phase where she's still provided for by her parents and she'll go after people out of "love". But once she's forced into the world of adults and have to work for a living, being a rich man will immensly improve your chances of getting her than being some broke ass slob will. The only difference between the Victorian Era and present day in that regard is that the Victorians knew about this and had procedures and negotiations about it openly, whereas in modern times people don't speak of it aloud because they want to perpetuate some naive ideals of "all you need is love" when in reality that is really not the case at all.
1