The Chain Shirt...

[No brains]

A little piece of my childhood died as I got to that age we all reach when we learn IRL chain armor is actually kinda crappy. It's damn heavy, it sags on you with all that weight, and its no big chore to penetrate it.

However, this isn't the case in 3.5... Chain Shirt is possibly the best armor available. If you have good dexterity, you're matching the AC of full plate with only the slimmest of penalties. Why is this? Is it the legacy of that mithril shirt in LotR? Is the idea that an agile enough person can can really get the most out of the teensy protection the links provide?

I do know that some heed is paid to chain's flaws as full chain only adds 1 to the AC bonus while devouring all the mobility you would enjoy in a chain wife-beater (Celt-beater?). Is IRL chain armor also favorable in small portions?

All views would be appreciated.

[Gnoman]

Historically, Charles the Great and other protofeudal lords preferred one man with a byrnie (mail shirt) to a hundred without one.

[Greenish]

If you're not focusing on Dex, heavier armour is probably preferable (mithral breastplate at least).

If you're focusing on Dex, you'll soon find the chain shirt (even mithral one) too constricting.

[Starbuck_II]

A little piece of my childhood died as I got to that age we all reach when we learn IRL chain armor is actually kinda crappy. It's damn heavy, it sags on you with all that weight, and its no big chore to penetrate it.

Yep chain MAIL sucks.


However, this isn't the case in 3.5... Chain Shirt is possibly the best armor available. If you have good dexterity, you're matching the AC of full plate with only the slimmest of penalties. Why is this? Is it the legacy of that mithril shirt in LotR? Is the idea that an agile enough person can can really get the most out of the teensy protection the links provide?

Chain SHIRT rocks. Correct.


I do know that some heed is paid to chain's flaws as full chain only adds 1 to the AC bonus while devouring all the mobility you would enjoy in a chain wife-beater (Celt-beater?). Is IRL chain armor also favorable in small portions?

All views would be appreciated.

Well, since I'm never seen Chain Shirt in real life, only how bad chain mail was, I'm not sure if 3.5 is accurate.
Have you ever heard of chain shirt in real life?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Indeed, it would seem that you still have some misconceptions about the efficacy of mail. You might want to go to the Real World Weapons and Armor (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192911) thread and pose your questions there.

[Spiryt]

Well, what's this thread about anyway?

Armor in D&D are abstract things, that mostly matter in terms of enhancements, mithrals and other stuff, the base is not very well designed.

Considering it as having any resemblance to "RL" is complete mistake.

Anyway, yes, chain mail sucks. Letter after letter, clogging your post/ account.

Maille or mail though, not really, if you mean armor that was used very successfully for about ~ 2000 years by people all over the whole Europe, Asia and Northern Africa.

[Nerdynick]

One of the problems with real chain armor is that it doesn't protect you at all from bludgeoning attacks (unless you're wearing heavy padding underneath) and it is only semi-effective against piercing attacks.

Of course, armor itself has never been that effective. Spanish Conquistadors had plate mail (generally only wearing the cuirass if you look at most of the artwork), but the Aztecs they were conquering could pierce it with an atlatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl).


In medieval times, shields were the thing. They stopped most of the attacks and were much cheaper than body armor. The term "fencing" actually comes from the word "defence" (European spelling). The defense in fencing is parrying and dodging blows, not layering yourself in plates of steel (if that goes to show anything).

Modern day armor is also pretty bad compared to weapons. "Bulletproof" vests only work for smaller calibers. Rifle bullets can only really be stopped by ceramic plates (which only work once). I will admit I have no idea how effective modern ballistic shields are.

EDIT: To the guy who asked about real life chain shirt (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/9080/)

[Antonok]

Chain shirts were used primarily to help deflect swords slashes, which were the most common type of weapon used in melee. They weren't meant to protect from arrows, thats what shields were for.

They were also ALOT lighter then full plate so ground troops could march longer, fight longer, etc.

The extra dexterity you got from it was what you depended on when fighting someone with a bludgeoning weapon, since theres no armor that can withstand truama of that type.

Also, most chain armor was worn with a belt tie to help pin it closer to your body so it didn't sag as bad and hinder your movement.

IMO, yes, the entire premise(sp?) of chain armor in DnD is that a agile char can evade attacks easier then someone wearing 100lb suit of full plate. hence why chain gets a higher dex bonus then plate, but plate being more durable and harder to peirce through (not impossable, I believe thats one of the reasons the crossbow was invented. Might be wrong on that tho) has a higher AC bonus but since its alot heavier and movement hindering, it has a lower dex bonus.

[No brains]

Chain SHIRT rocks. Correct.
Well, since I'm never seen Chain Shirt in real life, only how bad chain mail was, I'm not sure if 3.5 is accurate.
Have you ever heard of chain shirt in real life?

I got one in my basement right now soaking in coke to clear of a rusty spot:smallsmile:

It weighs about 15 lbs and is easy to wear with an extra belt worn halfway up to distribute the weight. I can whack a machete against myself halfheartedly with no fear of kidney loss, but I fear to go full power on it (without me in it) because I think the machete could bite through it.

Then again, I am in no way certain of the level of quality of this particular shirt. The gauge of the wire is respectable and it is unriveted.

[Nerdynick]

If its unriveted, I think it'll fall apart pretty quickly. Just a guess though.

The purpose of the crossbow IRL was so that they didn't have to spend so much time training archers. Direct-fire vs. Arc Shot is a huge difference in time. Crossbows themselves were probably more powerful than bows as well.

[Spiryt]

Guys you are mixing historical armor use with D&D stuff and real life fighting while they're really don't have too much in common.

Add in a whole lot of weird stories that have not much to do with history anyway. Quick sum up:

- Properly worn mail was very useful against blunt trauma or piercing attacks. Not useless at all.
- No plate was weighting 100 pounds save for tournament stuff
- No one was defending from bludgeoning weapons by "dressing lightly and leaping around" Drizzt style.
- Crossbow in Medieval Europe predate plate by at least 400 years. In no possible way was it invented to combat it. :smallsmile:
- swords were not main weapons used in melee trough the most of mentioned period
- Armors don't have "dex bonuses"

For more info, linked Real Life Weapons Thread is heartily recommended.

Because making thread based on a lot of pseudo medieval myths doesn't seem like good idea to me.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I got one in my basement right now soaking in coke to clear of a rusty spot:smallsmile:

It weighs about 15 lbs and is easy to wear with an extra belt worn halfway up to distribute the weight. I can whack a machete against myself halfheartedly with no fear of kidney loss, but I fear to go full power on it (without me in it) because I think the machete could bite through it.

Then again, I am in no way certain of the level of quality of this particular shirt. The gauge of the wire is respectable and it is unriveted.

If it's butted mail (and it sounds like it is) it's mostly a fashion item, and certainly not armor.

As to blunt trauma and wearing a bunch of padding beneath it - I believe the practice was to be wearing arming wear underneath the chain, then the chain, then a padded jack or other such textile armor over the top - which was quite effective. Again, this is to the best of my understanding, and not the opinions of an expert - though you could find some in the aforementioned Real World Weapons and Armor Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192911). They'll tell you what's what, and with citations and all the rest if you'd like to do some further reading.

[JaronK]

One of the problems with real chain armor is that it doesn't protect you at all from bludgeoning attacks (unless you're wearing heavy padding underneath) and it is only semi-effective against piercing attacks.

Note that Chain Shirts in D&D come with padding (you can buy Thistledown Padding for them which is a different form of padding), and also come with a helmet. So, they do protect reasonably well.

And the truth is, that sort of chain was quite protective if made and used right, but part of the "used right" does include the linen layers both on top and beneath it.

JaronK

[Greenish]

Guys you are mixing historical armor use with D&D stuff and real life fighting while they're really don't have too much in common.Well, in both of them, you will drown if your head is held in a bucket full of water while you're unconscious. So really, they have much in common. :smallcool:

[faceroll]

I imagine the economic advantage of chain over plate was pretty good, too. Making a chain garment may be time consuming and tedious, but doesn't require a great deal of skill. It's kind of like knitting. Forging plate required a much greater degree of craftsmanship, so for a levy or man-at-arms, plate would simply be too expensive.

[Antonok]

- Armors don't have "dex bonuses"

Wear a suit of plate armor and then tell me otherwise :smalltongue:

(I have worn a suit of plate armor. You can't hardly do anything in those things but look shiny)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Wear a suit of plate armor and then tell me otherwise :smalltongue:

(I have worn a suit of plate armor. You can't hardly do anything in those things but look shiny)

Otherwise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg).

[Spiryt]

If it's butted mail (and it sounds like it is) it's mostly a fashion item, and certainly not armor.

A whole lot of riveted one is close to fashion item too.

People have weird objections when it comes to believing that the stuff that some hobbyist/ Indian child puts together from some scrap doesn't really represent any type of actual mail made to protect body.....

It's all fun and cool, I'm first to admit, but how comes the idea that properties of real stuff can be judged from it while it's not made based on any kind of research?

Good thread about it (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19189) Dan Howard mostly talks about European(ish) medieval(ish) recreations I guess, and there's much more to the mail topic obviously.

There's quite a lot of Persian mail in Polish museums that appears to be both functional battle armours and butted.

They're pretty unlike most European mail, for starters they appear to be made from ridiculously tiny rings.

http://dawneuzbrojenie.republika.pl/cz33k.jpg

[No brains]

Wear a suit of plate armor and then tell me otherwise :smalltongue:

(I have worn a suit of plate armor. You can't hardly do anything in those things but look shiny)


Otherwise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg).

My most recent experience in "you can move well in plate" was in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where mo-cap cameras were used to see if Joan of Arc's plate armor would hamper her more than some guy in chain armor. It turns out, plate only hampered her movement about half as much as the man in chain.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

A whole lot of riveted one is close to fashion item too.

True, though I said nothing to the contrary - and up until your post I'd never heard of any sort of butted mail that was meant to be functional armor. I still think it's relatively safe to say that in most cases, my prior statement holds true.


There's quite a lot of Persian mail in Polish museums that appears to be both functional battle armours and butted.

They're pretty unlike most European mail, for starters they appear to be made from ridiculously tiny rings.

Hmm, that's quite interesting. Do you have any links to further information?

Edit:


My most recent experience in "you can move well in plate" was in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where mo-cap cameras were used to see if Joan of Arc's plate armor would hamper her more than some guy in chain armor. It turns out, plate only hampered her movement about half as much as the man in chain.

I'm no expert, but that show strikes me as so full of procedural issues that I would hardly call it evidence, either for or against our point.

[Greenish]

It turns out, plate only hampered her movement about half as much as the man in chain.That makes it sound like the guy in chain was hanging on the her too. :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

My most recent experience in "you can move well in plate" was in an episode of Deadliest Warrior where mo-cap cameras were used to see if Joan of Arc's plate armor would hamper her more than some guy in chain armor. It turns out, plate only hampered her movement about half as much as the man in chain.

Deadliest Warrior is completely worthless as far as researching anything real goes, see their butted mail, "William Wallace" with blue paint, kilt and claymore, double spear throw and tonnes of other jolly recreation.


I'm no expert, but that show strikes me as so full of procedural issues that I would hardly call it evidence, either for or against our point.

Procedural issues starts with tested items that likely have minimal similarity to ancient ones. Starting with 13th century claymore....


True, though I said nothing to the contrary - and up until your post I'd never heard of any sort of butted mail that was meant to be functional armor. I still think it's relatively safe to say that in most cases, my prior statement holds true.

I agree, that was just a bit of addition.


Hmm, that's quite interesting. Do you have any links to further information?

Not really, I have big ass book by Z. Żygulski with pictures of amrs in polish stores, there are Indio Persian armors here, and rings described as "not connected".

I provided a picture, that mail appears to have ring of outer diameter of 5mm, so pretty small.

I would love to know more about their functionality. They appear well made, and pretty no nonsense too, but hell knows.

[CodeRed]

Of course, armor itself has never been that effective. Spanish Conquistadors had plate mail (generally only wearing the cuirass if you look at most of the artwork), but the Aztecs they were conquering could pierce it with an atlatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl).

That's patently wrong. A flint or obsidian headed atlatl thrown at world-record speed will not pierce plate armor. There's a show on the Military History channel that proved this completely true.

Weapon Masters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw)

Using the best atlatlists in the world, they could not pull it off. Eventually, in order to pierce the armor the shop dude strapped a bullet actuator on the end of one so it would fire a .45 when the atlatl struck home.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Not really, I have big ass book by Z. Żygulski with pictures of amrs in polish stores, there are Indio Persian armors here, and rings described as "not connected".

I provided a picture, that mail appears to have ring of outer diameter of 5mm, so pretty small.

I would love to know more about their functionality. They appear well made, and pretty no nonsense too, but hell knows.

And of course Z. Zygulski's book is in Polish...It's rather difficult finding out about medieval Persian arms and armor (especially the latter). I had such a time figuring out just what a Khazanghand was, I've almost given up on it. At least, until I learn Arabic and Persian.

[faceroll]

That's patently wrong. A flint or obsidian headed atlatl thrown at world-record speed will not pierce plate armor. There's a show on the Military History channel that proved this completely true.

Weapon Masters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw)

Using the best atlatlists in the world, they could not pull it off. Eventually, in order to pierce the armor the shop dude strapped a bullet actuator on the end of one so it would fire a .45 when the atlatl struck home.

I feel like 300 men facing off against 3000-30000 will eventually find that something gets through their armor.

[Spiryt]

That's patently wrong. A flint or obsidian headed atlatl thrown at world-record speed will not pierce plate armor. There's a show on the Military History channel that proved this completely true.

Weapon Masters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw)

Using the best atlatlists in the world, they could not pull it off. Eventually, in order to pierce the armor the shop dude strapped a bullet actuator on the end of one so it would fire a .45 when the atlatl struck home.

Pretty nice, I wonder about quality of recreation in this one. Mike Loades is pretty good usually, though, so I hope that this stuff at least resembles Spaniard XVI cent. breastplates in metallurgy etc.

Too bad they didn't make target more realistic, and with padding that should went under the armor.

That would make atlatl situation only worse though, anyway.

As far as Indian XVII century mail goes, I think I will ask my sis to do a picture straight from the book, as I can't find it in the net.... :smalltongue:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I feel like 300 men facing off against 3000-30000 will eventually find that something gets through their armor.

Or, rather, that something gets around their armor, as is far more likely.

Edit:


As far as Indian XVII century mail goes, I think I will ask my sis to do a picture straight from the book, as I can't find it in the net.... :smalltongue:

Excellent.

[Greenish]

I feel like 300 men facing off against 3000-30000 will eventually find that something gets through their armor.I should think something getting around said armour was more likely.

[Edit]: Woe is me, for I have been swordsage'd.

[Spiryt]

And of course Z. Zygulski's book is in Polish...It's rather difficult finding out about medieval Persian arms and armor (especially the latter). I had such a time figuring out just what a Khazanghand was, I've almost given up on it. At least, until I learn Arabic and Persian.

Well, meanwhile, I have this

link (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=6439)

Not good pictures, but size of rings is at least visible.

And not so related, but great picture I've found googling for persian mail (big):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_C6_DXX4pkmQ/TAyXxu8G6GI/AAAAAAAAAY0/C3kVkkPB86o/s1600/Ottoman_Mamluk_horseman_circa_1550.jpg


I feel like 300 men facing off against 3000-30000 will eventually find that something gets through their armor.

Well, if I understand your post well - the point is that they kind of didn't. Southern American civilisation sadly or not (depending on personal views on historical processes) had been curb stomped, though obviously narrowing it down to differences in arms is terrible simplification.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...though obviously narrowing it down to differences in arms is terrible simplification.

Though it would be safe to say that it was a large part of it, I think.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...though obviously narrowing it down to differences in arms is terrible simplification.

Though it would be safe to say that it was a large part of it, I think.

Edit: Double post, sorry.

[Greenish]

Though it would be safe to say that it was a large part of it, I think.European cities of the time being festering pits of filth and disease had a part in it, I've heard claimed.

[faceroll]

Well, if I understand your post well - the point is that they kind of didn't. Southern American civilisation sadly or not (depending on personal views on historical processes) had been curb stomped, though obviously narrowing it down to differences in arms is terrible simplification.

If you read contemporary accounts of say, the Spaniards in South America, they faced off against Incan armies that outnumbered them ten or thirty to one. Of course, the Incans were clad in armor made from fabric, wielded wooden clubs, had no mounts and no metal, and all were suffering the depredations of European diseases, like smallpox or influenza.

Regardless, there were A LOT of troops against the Spaniards, and when you've got that many darts coming at you, some are bound to hit a weakened spot in your armor or punch through a joint or something.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Persian chain mail uses a ridiculously difficult weave, each link not only interlocks with other links, but also overlays when done properly, making it far sturdier than it would otherwise indicate. It is much better at distributing kenetic energy across the entire piece than standard 4-in-1 mail which most europeans used (other than the finger-cramping 6 in 2 kings-mail).

Chain or plate, it doesn't really matter. If it's properly cinched and fitted, it's not going to affect your mobility significantly. I've worn, and made, plenty of both.

Having said that, either Mithral Chain or Mithral Plate, depending on your dex modifiers and armor proficencies, are the clear winners on the armor competition, unless your dex is high enough that you'd prefer Bondleaf Wrap.

[Greenish]

unless your dex is high enough that you'd prefer Bondleaf Wrap.Hmm, where's that from, and is it better than, say, a dastana or gnome twistcloth?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Hmm, where's that from, and is it better than, say, a dastana or gnome twistcloth?

It's about the same as gnomish twistcloth. It's from A&EG. +1 armor bonus, no max dex.

[CodeRed]

Regardless, there were A LOT of troops against the Spaniards, and when you've got that many darts coming at you, some are bound to hit a weakened spot in your armor or punch through a joint or something.

Did you watch the video all the way through? Towards the end one of the guys manages to nail the dummy in the eye. That's an instant death blow. Yes, an atlatl couldn't pierce a breastplate but after the first one failed you would assume the guys throwing them would aim for the face, legs, or arms which were unprotected. At close range those darts are can be highly accurate and deadly like that but the Spaniards of course way outranged them with gunpowder weapons and/or crossbows.

The loss of Native Americans in Mexico and South America is multi-factoral of course but arms and armor definitely played a huge part. Tack this onto no natural resistance to European diseases wiping out massive swaths of your population and you can see why the situation was grim. A major part however that I haven't seen anyone mention yet was the cultural infighting. Part of the reason Cortes was able to defeat the Aztecs was because he rallied all the other native groups in the area that hated the Aztecs and got them to fight on his side. Then, after defeating the key power in the area he turned on his erstwhile allies and subjugated them once they were already weakened fighting for him in the first place.

[Saintheart]

Did you watch the video all the way through? Towards the end one of the guys manages to nail the dummy in the eye. That's an instant death blow. Yes, an atlatl couldn't pierce a breastplate but after the first one failed you would assume the guys throwing them would aim for the face, legs, or arms which were unprotected. At close range those darts are can be highly accurate and deadly like that but the Spaniards of course way outranged them with gunpowder weapons and/or crossbows.

The loss of Native Americans in Mexico and South America is multi-factoral of course but arms and armor definitely played a huge part. Tack this onto no natural resistance to European diseases wiping out massive swaths of your population and you can see why the situation was grim. A major part however that I haven't seen anyone mention yet was the cultural infighting. Part of the reason Cortes was able to defeat the Aztecs was because he rallied all the other native groups in the area that hated the Aztecs and got them to fight on his side. Then, after defeating the key power in the area he turned on his erstwhile allies and subjugated them once they were already weakened fighting for him in the first place.

Course, there's also this little thing called firearms and early artillery, too. And also the fact the conquistadores had a sort of fear aura in effect: their horses intimidated the local populace, which had never seen them before.

[ericgrau]

Full plate can be pierced too. It's not like tank armor, it's more like metal sheets. Given the 50 lb. weight in the rules it's at most 1/16" thick, and after padding and overlapping pieces probably significantly less than that. In both cases the armor is not invulnerable, but it helps.

If you look at the treasure tables the better magical armors: chain shirt, breast plate and full plate, are more common too. The main purpose of the others seem to be lower cost and to have a match for every dexterity modifier and armor check penalty you might want. Hence my level 1 characters tend to wear scale even though breast plate gives 1 more AC for the same max dex, low level druids get hide, low level rogues get leather or masterwork studded leather, etc.

[Spiryt]

Mentioned Indian sheer darkside mail (big):

http://i56.tinypic.com/o10jzq.jpg

[Psyren]

Well, in both of them, you will drown if your head is held in a bucket full of water while you're unconscious. So really, they have much in common. :smallcool:

Yet one of those will heal your wounds first :smalltongue:

[Badgerish]

Yet one of those will heal your wounds first :smalltongue:gotta get it right: one of them will heal your wounds, then kill you the following round

(round 2 of drowning: you go to 0hp. round 3 of drowning: you die. There are no rules for stopping drowning on/after round 2)

[hamishspence]

What about the DC 15 Heal check to end the Dying condition?

If you take the view that any form of Dying can be ended with this Heal check- you can end the Dying aspect of the Drowning state.

Once Stable, for whatever reason, a character is no longer Dying.

(It's Round 1: 0 HP, Round 2: -1 HP, Dying, Round 3: Dead).

[Psyren]

What about the DC 15 Heal check to end the Dying condition?

If you take the view that any form of Dying can be ended with this Heal check- you can end the Dying aspect of the Drowning state.

Once Stable, for whatever reason, a character is no longer Dying.

(It's Round 1: 0 HP, Round 2: -1 HP, Dying, Round 3: Dead).

I looked through Stormwrack as you suggested before, but I couldn't find the rule that lets you use Heal to stop drowning. Do you have a page reference?

As for stopping dying, it only makes you stable as far as I can see:


First Aid
You usually use first aid to save a dying character. If a character has negative hit points and is losing hit points (at the rate of 1 per round, 1 per hour, or 1 per day), you can make him or her stable. A stable character regains no hit points but stops losing them.

The problem is that drowning takes you to -1, but does none of the rest of that. You aren't losing any more hit points while drowning; you just go 0, -1, dead.

And even if you rule that it satisfies the condition despite not losing any more HP, all the check does is make the patient stable - it doesn't say anything about interrupting the drowning process, by RAW anyway.

[bassmasterginga]

as for the mobility of full plate armor, i read that a knight that fell from his horse was in fact incapable of standing up. This made capturing and ransoming these guys almost pitifully easy. Just think about all the poor impotent buggers fallen into some puddle of mud and going on a Monte python black knight monologue. In one battle between the British and the french the victorious french simply stopped by the battlefield the next day to collect their spoils.

[Spiryt]

as for the mobility of full plate armor, i read that a knight that fell from his horse was in fact incapable of standing up. This made capturing and ransoming these guys almost pitifully easy. Just think about all the poor impotent buggers fallen into some puddle of mud and going on a Monte python black knight monologue. In one battle between the British and the french the victorious french simply stopped by the battlefield the next day to collect their spoils.

All of this is complete load of.... you know. Sorry.

You must see that this picture is pure Monty Python and has nothing to do with reality.

[bassmasterginga]

All of this is complete load of.... you know. Sorry.

You must see that this picture is pure Monty Python and has nothing to do with reality.

well actually if you want the source it is "the art of war in the western world""
eh i gave the book back to my history professor so i cant quote it but im prty sure so :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

well actually if you want the source it is "the art of war in the western world""
eh i gave the book back to my history professor so i cant quote it but im prty sure so :smalltongue:

Well, if the rest Mr. Jones book contains statement as outlandish as that one, I would suggest not getting back to it, ever...... :smallconfused:

No period source tells anything about anyone wearing armor that limits very basic movements, no battle armor preserved from the period is like that and no one would possibly be dumb enough to wear something that only allows him to lie to battle. :smallconfused:

Pretty much most full plate suits were in no way cavalry only armors, they were used on feet plenty.

http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/royaltyatPotiers1356.JPG

Even not very well fit modern reproductions of plate allow flips, push ups etc. let alone standing up. One example is in this very thread.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

as for the mobility of full plate armor, i read that a knight that fell from his horse was in fact incapable of standing up. This made capturing and ransoming these guys almost pitifully easy. Just think about all the poor impotent buggers fallen into some puddle of mud and going on a Monte python black knight monologue. In one battle between the British and the french the victorious french simply stopped by the battlefield the next day to collect their spoils.

Speaking as someone who has worn the stuff, I would respectfully disagree, in every regard.

You've seen people who are a little... padded. Who could stand to lose... say... around fifty pounds. Are they incapable of getting up? No? Then why would someone wearing fifty pounds of armor be incapable of doing so? Joints are articulated, in case you hadn't noticed, so there's no loss of flexibility (since your bones can't flex anyways, your limbs have to flex only at joints, unless you wish to place yourself in the tender mercies of the infirmary).

Trust me, I've done everything from jazzersizing to akido to TKD in full plate. It takes some getting used to, sure. But the ones wearing plate were practically born to it. You didn't get it issued to you as a standard conscript peasant. They got a spear, and if they were very lucky, some kind of shield.

The book you were getting your material from was, at best, grossly out of date. Failing that, the author simply was completely incompetent in the field of History. If your professor believes that, then the only reason he is still a professor is due to tenure and it would take more effort to fire him than to simply wait until he retires.

[bassmasterginga]

ah yes but the armor im referring to was worn by knights and nobles, the high and mighty of the mideavel cast system. The objective of armor for them was indeed simply to keep them alive. Unlike your standard soldier these men could expect relatively decent treatment upon capture and were returned to their lands after the ransom was paid. These men were capable of making and outfitting their own armor to their own specifications independent of good military sense. Is it really any surprise that they turtled up as much as their horses could carry and weren't too unhappy to call it quits as soon as they fell off? There is of course a difference between this "full plate mail" and the infantry "plate mail" and perhaps you could make an argument that the dnd system is referring to the more practicle version of plate mail used by the more expendable soldiers, and i would agree with you on that point. However Mr. Johnson is doing good history and this is a valid point in a thread discussing RL armor.

edit - oh and schnecky I hardly think that the ren fair is an accurate historical source.....

[Spiryt]

ah yes but the armor im referring to was worn by knights and nobles, the high and mighty of the mideavel cast system.

The knight and nobles were pretty much main users or what you will call "full plate".

There were no suits of armor like you are describing, save for tournament ones sometimes.

There is no period source describing something like that, if you have one, please show.

No one would be happy to "call it quit" as soon as they fall of the horse, that's damn suicide.

No matter how good history is Mr. Johsnon "making" in this aspect he has no idea what he's talking about, plainly and simply. Can't speak about other things, obviously.


Speaking as someone who has worn the stuff, I would respectfully disagree, in every regard.

What stuff have you worn, by curiosity? Authentically made stuff is hard to get and expensive obviously, always nice to hear some experiences.

[bassmasterginga]

I Admit Defeat

so my furthr reading has unearthed a few qualifing statements that need to be applied to the assertion tht a fallen man in full plate cat get up. from wiki pedia to you --
"When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as having been knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#The_main_French_assault

[Spiryt]

I honestly still don't get your point.

Yes, at Agincourt many knights couldn't get up, as they were getting assaulted and killed in the mud, after their attack got completely broken and they were getting stomped by English knights, archers and man at arms

Just as this guy in Talhoffer can't get up:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/johnraptor/Talhoffer1459-2.jpg

Because the other one is mounting him and actively trying to put dagger in his face.

That doesn't in any way suggest that guy left on his own without people trying to harm him in huge chaos could get up easily.


In modern military they will drill dudes to get up and down in mud at nausea with 30kg backpacks full of clunky equipment.

There's absolutely no reason for man in 30 kg of much more comfortable burden to do the same.

[hamishspence]

The problem is that drowning takes you to -1, but does none of the rest of that. You aren't losing any more hit points while drowning; you just go 0, -1, dead.

And even if you rule that it satisfies the condition despite not losing any more HP, all the check does is make the patient stable - it doesn't say anything about interrupting the drowning process, by RAW anyway.

I must admit I am beginning to wonder if that contributor made a mistake.

Maybe there's a "Drowning Handbook" on the CharOp forums listing RAW ways to end the Drowning condition?

[bassmasterginga]

I honestly still don't get your point.

Yes, at Agincourt many knights couldn't get up, as they were getting assaulted and killed in the mud, after their attack got completely broken and they were getting stomped by English knights, archers and man at arms

Just as this guy in Talhoffer can't get up:



Because the other one is mounting him and actively trying to put dagger in his face.

That doesn't in any way suggest that guy left on his own without people trying to harm him in huge chaos could get up easily.


In modern military they will drill dudes to get up and down in mud at nausea with 30kg backpacks full of clunky equipment.

There's absolutely no reason for man in 30 kg of much more comfortable burden to do the same.

um well these guys walked "a few hundred yards" so we shall say 600 ft, or 15 full move actions in full plate. And at the conclusion of this walk they were to exhausted to stand after being knocked prown. And these are infantrymen, not knights. So if that rule were to be applied to dnd you would wind up with a party tank making endurance checks Every Minute! which is a big deal.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

ah yes but the armor im referring to was worn by knights and nobles, the high and mighty of the mideavel cast system. The objective of armor for them was indeed simply to keep them alive. Unlike your standard soldier these men could expect relatively decent treatment upon capture and were returned to their lands after the ransom was paid. These men were capable of making and outfitting their own armor to their own specifications independent of good military sense. Is it really any surprise that they turtled up as much as their horses could carry and weren't too unhappy to call it quits as soon as they fell off? There is of course a difference between this "full plate mail" and the infantry "plate mail" and perhaps you could make an argument that the dnd system is referring to the more practicle version of plate mail used by the more expendable soldiers, and i would agree with you on that point. However Mr. Jones is doing good history and this is a valid point in a thread discussing RL armor.

edit - oh and schnecky I hardly think that the ren fair is an accurate historical source.....

Cute, kid. Who said anything about ren fair? Well, I *HAVE* worn it out there, but I made it under the stern gaze of my mentor in his forge. I studied under a master smith, who made the armor as it was shown to him, as it has been passed down for over a thousand years.

You know what is in a book. I know the feel of steel blushing orange under my hammer upon my anvil, and know by sound when to stop striking. I know how they made plate, because I learned the exact same techniques, with few refinements over the centuries.

Here's something else for you... there was no such thing as a man in ANY kind of metal armor, plate or chain, who was 'expendable'. A set of field plate costs as much as a warhorse, as valuable as an entire company of common infantry. Field plate was designed specifically to be used on foot OR on horse. Earlier 'horseman's plate' (resurrected again when jousting became a sport) was called so because it had no back because no one could get AT your back while your horse's momentum kept you moving ever forward. So field plate is in every way superior protection, however the seat is not designed to be used very well from saddle. THAT is why earlier knights generally surrendered when they were unhorsed... because their armor was nigh worthless on the ground. And that was why that deficiency in design was corrected.

Later 'horseman's plate' was dubbed so because the seat was designed to work perfectly with a saddle so the metal armor did not ruin your saddle after every combat, and give you a bit of extra grip between you and your saddle, which might well be the difference between victory and defeat. That was the primary difference between field plate and horseman's plate by the time it started to become no longer practical.

The common peasants had nothing left for them if they surrendered. Death from opponents who did not have the facilities to keep prisoners, and death from their own nobles for being cowards. They were not allowed to surrender before their leaders, or be hung.

The nobility, occasionally, would surrender to save his own people, and the terms of his ransom to include his people being allowed to go home. However, noblemen were ALWAYS treated with respect when captured, because you could get no ransom out of a corpse. It was one of the few chances a peasant had of making a fortune in war, and they weren't going to risk it for anything so petty as class injustice. Not when they stood to use that same class system to raise themselves up to an exalted (to their way of thinking) state.

You are spouting nonsense that was debunked forty years ago by historians, metallurgists, and engineers. My suggestion to you, good sir, is to do your own research, rather than parrot the words of a single individual.

And on performing research, here's a protip: Wikipedia is a user-edited source, and scoffed by the intellectual community as unreliable at best.

[kamikasei]

um well these guys walked "a few hundred yards" so we shall say 600 ft, or 15 full move actions in full plate. And at the conclusion of this walk they were to exhausted to stand after being knocked prown. And these are infantrymen, not knights. So if that rule were to be applied to dnd you would wind up with a party tank making endurance checks Every Minute! which is a big deal.
You're shifting the goalposts at such a rate I half expect you to need an endurance check soon yourself. You're also being rather selective in the evidence you present.

You started out saying that a knight in full plate knocked off his horse wouldn't have the mobility to get back up. Now you're talking about infantry becoming fatigued. Fatigue and mobility are not the same thing.

Furthermore, from your link, "...the physical pounding from thousands of non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers..." were the factors in the French troops' exhaustion - not just the weight of their armour.

If you want to argue that D&D should model fatigue better, knock yourself out, but it has nothing to do with how much or how little a given type of armour restricts a wearer's flexibility.

[Spiryt]

If you want to argue that D&D should model fatigue better at all, knock yourself out, but it has nothing to do with how much or how little a given type of armour restricts a wearer's flexibility.

:smallbiggrin:

Seriously cardio is not a problem at all in D&D, so it's broader topic. :smallwink:

[noparlpf]

Nearly all my characters prefer a mithral shirt (1100 gp, no armor check penalty, +6 dex bonus or something like that) to full plate (1500 gp, big armor check penalties, +1 dex bonus?, -10 ft speed).
I'm guessing the chain shirt is as it is simply to allow the mithral shirt to be so awesome.

Kind of off-topic: If you look up half the armors (and even weapons) in 3.5, you'll find that most of them are fantastical and depart from real armors and weapons. "Studded leather" armor was actually sheets of steel sewn or otherwise attached inside a leather shirt, and the only visible parts of the metal were the "studs" sticking through by which the plates were attached. (That was explained poorly. I came down with a fever last night.) A "longsword" is the equivalent of a European arming sword (a one-handed sword), whereas the "greatsword" is closer to the European longsword or bastard sword (both typically hand-and-a-half to two-handed weapons, generally wielded in both hands).

Even further off-topic than the previous paragraph: It bothers me that it requires a feat to get an armor bonus from your weapon. Any rube with a sword could ward off at least one or two blows before getting killed. But then, AC is valued higher than attack bonuses in 3.5.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, since I'm never seen Chain Shirt in real life, only how bad chain mail was, I'm not sure if 3.5 is accurate.
Have you ever heard of chain shirt in real life?

Yes (http://i.ebayimg.com/20/!B9qdb6QCWk~$%28KGrHqV,!i8EzN%29NUWFpBM6bEkBC1!~~_ 3.JPG). Roman chain armor would be what we call a chain shirt. They phased them out because they are not good at dealing with blunt impact if my memory serves.

[kamikasei]

Seriously cardio is not a problem at all in D&D, so it's broader topic. :smallwink:
Huh, you're right. I had thought there were some rules for becoming exhausted if you haul a heavy load around too fast for too long, but checking on the SRD, it seems the game only cares about long-distance movement when it comes to fatigue and doesn't factor in encumbrance.

[hamishspence]

It does reduce one's speed though, once it gets high enough- so a character might get exhausted after a shorter distance.

And if one goes faster than the maximum normal speed for that weight, it becomes hustling- which is much more exhausting.

[Hanuman]

Chainmail is similar to the modern ballistic vest, it's not meant to take a direct hit, it's meant to protect against indirect, glancing or partial strikes.

As far as I can tell, it's not actually meant to be armor on it's own, it's meant as an undergarment for the joints including the neck.

Ballistic vests in modern combat simply do not stop modern weapons, even 7.62x39 rounds can't really be stopped by vests, it'll go straight through. It's meant for shrapnel and glancing hits. Anyone who wears practical armor such as steel toed boots, aluminized kevlar gloves, meta-aramid suits or ballistics vests (for all their respective jobs and roles) know that these are meant to primarily function against MINOR incidents, and in the case of a major incident, or accident you are generally screwed anyway.
Such is the mentality of ancient armor, you don't wear armor ONLY to stop a catastrophic failure, it's also got a very practical role to limit trauma for expected minor injuries such as the ones you'd get even when the opponent has a bad day.

[bassmasterginga]

well i did admit defeat didn't i? that is why the goalpost got moved. cause i was wrong. Cause i said that i admitted defeat. That's the point of admitting defeat. You declare you original goal to be untenable. The point i am making now, because my earlier point was exaggerated at best, is simply that the dnd system does not compare to IRL full plate in the way that it modals the extream burden of moving around in the stuff for any period of time in battle. Not saying that it should. That would be a pain. But i thought it thread appropriate to mention this IRL restriction. My original representation of this restriction was inappropriate, and i am now trying to present a more refutable description.

[Spiryt]

Yes (http://i.ebayimg.com/20/!B9qdb6QCWk~$%28KGrHqV,!i8EzN%29NUWFpBM6bEkBC1!~~_ 3.JPG). Roman chain armor would be what we call a chain shirt. They phased them out because they are not good at dealing with blunt impact if my memory serves.

They never had phased them out.

In 1rst century AD, lorica segmentata had become very popular armor in legions, used alongside with mail.

Unfortunately even vague percentage proportions of their use are not really known.

But before 3rd century AD ended, era of segmentata had mostly ended, while mail was still and still in use by changing Roman legions.

http://www.comitatus.net/images/ages8.jpg

After fall of the Rome, mail in large part as a legacy of it became "standard" Dark Age armor from Britain to Spain.

[Gwendol]

I heard a science show on the radio quoting a recent scientific paper that had tested the toll on the wearer of plate armor (of the kind used by french knights at Agincourt). The outcome of the study is that the wearer needed to spend about twice as much energy to run, march, etc, as one would wihout the armor. Hence, their endurance is severly affected, not necessarily their mobility.
In-game most battles are over within 6-10 rounds, so that would hardly play a role, but otherwise it would be justifiable to roll against fatigue if fighting/hustling/etc for longer periods while wearing heavy armor.

[bassmasterginga]

I heard a science show on the radio quoting a recent scientific paper that had tested the toll on the wearer of plate armor (of the kind used by french knights at Agincourt). The outcome of the study is that the wearer needed to spend about twice as much energy to run, march, etc, as one would wihout the armor. Hence, their endurance is severly affected, not necessarily their mobility.
In-game most battles are over within 6-10 rounds, so that would hardly play a role, but otherwise it would be justifiable to roll against fatigue if fighting/hustling/etc for longer periods while wearing heavy armor.

i ran across that study as well. Oh but so many fighters would drown/burn up/be killed by zombies/dragons/llamas every time a dungeon ended in a "Run for your life!!!!!" scenario. I would just start to feel bad for the poor guys.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.

I very much doubt that people who were literally born to the occupation would have less stamina than volunteers who might have only had indifferent exercise prior to enlistment.

[bassmasterginga]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.


well ye olde knight also had the sword and the shield and such. Let me just find the study and point that at you...

"That's what Askew and colleagues found when they had the armor-clad interpreters run on a treadmill at different speeds and monitored their oxygen consumption, heart and respiration rates, and stride length. The interpreters expended about 2.3 times the amount of energy usually required to walk and 1.9 times the energy usually required to run while wearing armor than when they weren't, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This energy expenditure is much greater than the energy that a person wearing a backpack of an equivalent weight would use."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/heavy-armor-gave-knights-a-worko.html

edit - we all read the same stuff haw?

[kamikasei]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.
Actually, I read a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717) recently discussing what may be the same study referenced above by Gwendol and bassmasterginga, and they specifically measured the difference between worn plate and an equivalent weight carried on the back like modern soldier's gear - plate was a good deal more tiring. The explanation they gave was that plate puts a lot of weight on the legs and increases the cost of movement more than having the same weight carried on the back and the legs unencumbered.

[elpollo]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.

I very much doubt that people who were literally born to the occupation would have less stamina than volunteers who might have only had indifferent exercise prior to enlistment.

I suspect that we've gotten better at distributing weight to make it easier to carry, however, so it's a difficult comparison to make.

edit - well, yeah... ninja'd a little

[warty goblin]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.

I very much doubt that people who were literally born to the occupation would have less stamina than volunteers who might have only had indifferent exercise prior to enlistment.

My understanding is that a lot of what makes armor plate exhausting is that it holds heat extremely well and covers the vast majority of your body's surface area. Most campaigns, at least in Europe, would have occurred in high to late summer as well, so the sun would be high. Add it all together and you're looking at a very warm experience. Heat exhaustion/stroke can be quite brutal and stop a person even if otherwise they would have the energy to continue.

[Hanuman]

As a point of reference, modern day military soldiers are expected to be able to march 30 miles in full ALICE and flak vest. The vest itself weighs 25 lbs, the assault pack weighs another 30. And still be expected to be in fighting trim at the end of the day.

I very much doubt that people who were literally born to the occupation would have less stamina than volunteers who might have only had indifferent exercise prior to enlistment.
Well, for BMQ the most stamina is needed for your ruck run, which depending on driller can be 50-70lbs for around 12km, this is jogging of course.
Yeah by the end of BMQ you're pretty darn fit, or you've voluntary discharged by then. You generally carry a lot more in-field than just your vest though, and the places we usually send our troops are pretty freaking hot which leeches a lot of stamina.

Being born into a military family is more about mental focus, endurance is a mental thing, your body gives up long before you do.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Actually, I read a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717) recently discussing what may be the same study referenced above by Gwendol and bassmasterginga, and they specifically measured the difference between worn plate and an equivalent weight carried on the back like modern soldier's gear - plate was a good deal more tiring. The explanation they gave was that plate puts a lot of weight on the legs and increases the cost of movement more than having the same weight carried on the back and the legs unencumbered.

When performed by out-of-shape interns, not by individuals in fighting trim, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I can engage in SCA combat for several hours straight (full force, by the way, the only concession is beebees welded onto tips), then clean and repair my armor at camp that evening.

These people were trained, from the time they could toddle, to the task. They wore armor like we would wear business suits. They were used to it and accustomed to it.

Take, for example, an individual who is 50 lbs overweight. They can move surprisingly fast (although no stamina due to lack of exercise) because they are used to the encumbrance, and have adapted how they move to accommodate it.

Part of the linked article is either complete BS, or simply Not Doing It Right. In particular:


The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy. If a suit of armor restricts your breathing, then it is not properly fitted to you. This is a failure in the scientists knowing how the hell to put it on someone, which can easily double the effort it takes to move around in it.

It's perfectly clear they've never heard of a garter, since the original purpose was to take the load of the greaves off the legs and onto the hips, more evenly distributed across the body.

Properly distributed, you move around in plate just as fast as you do without it. Hell, with adrenaline going in a fight, you don't notice a DAMN thing, except who is comin' after you with a blade, until the whole thing is over.

[Hanuman]

When performed by out-of-shape interns, not by individuals in fighting trim, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I can engage in SCA combat for several hours straight (full force, by the way, the only concession is beebees welded onto tips), then clean and repair my armor at camp that evening.

These people were trained, from the time they could toddle, to the task. They wore armor like we would wear business suits. They were used to it and accustomed to it.

Take, for example, an individual who is 50 lbs overweight. They can move surprisingly fast (although no stamina due to lack of exercise) because they are used to the encumbrance, and have adapted how they move to accommodate it.

Part of the linked article is either complete BS, or simply Not Doing It Right. In particular:

If a suit of armor restricts your breathing, then it is not properly fitted to you. This is a failure in the scientists knowing how the hell to put it on someone, which can easily double the effort it takes to move around in it.

It's perfectly clear they've never heard of a garter, since the original purpose was to take the load of the greaves off the legs and onto the hips, more evenly distributed across the body.

Properly distributed, you move around in plate just as fast as you do without it. Hell, with adrenaline going in a fight, you don't notice a DAMN thing, except who is comin' after you with a blade, until the whole thing is over.
I have to agree, as an anatomy/physiology student, a martial artist and a dance instructor I have to say that the load on the legs as well as the breath control is something to grow into. Any person who is moderately fit will have a strong back, but perhaps not strong and dense leg muscle fibers. Shallow breaths are fine and do not waste energy, but it's the manner of relaxation in which the energy is conserved. If someone controls their breath they can control their heart rate, their adrenal triggers, and their "stamina".

To preserve knowledge, I think if people don't have direct research or experience they should cite.

[bassmasterginga]

"But four historical interpreters at the Royal Armouries were thrilled to participate in his study, says Askew."

so not interns. the part about fitting is interesting. I don't see it mentioned in the article either way so maybe"

[Spiryt]

I still don't really get the exact innovativeness of this BBC study - well, trying to tell that 60 pounds of steel on you is rather exhausting is kind of superfluous.

One had to deal with it, as exhausted, drowned in one's own sweat for the moment, and alive for some time ahead, was still seen as better than peaceful rest eternal - starting just at that battle's. :smallwink:

[faceroll]

I still don't really get the exact innovativeness of this BBC study - well, trying to tell that 60 pounds of steel on you is rather exhausting is kind of superfluous.

One had to deal with it, as exhausted, drowned in one's own sweat for the moment, and alive for some time ahead, was still seen as better than peaceful rest eternal - starting just at that battle's. :smallwink:

Well, they wanted to measure HOW tiresome 60lbs of steel all over your body was compared to a 60 lb pack.

Seems like they've got some methodological errors, though.

[Doug Lampert]

I got one in my basement right now soaking in coke to clear of a rusty spot:smallsmile:

It weighs about 15 lbs and is easy to wear with an extra belt worn halfway up to distribute the weight. I can whack a machete against myself halfheartedly with no fear of kidney loss, but I fear to go full power on it (without me in it) because I think the machete could bite through it.

Then again, I am in no way certain of the level of quality of this particular shirt. The gauge of the wire is respectable and it is unriveted.

Someday you should look up what drawing wire represented in terms of labor at that time.

Riviting every single link was the EASY PART of making chain armor. Seriously. It's not even close.

I doubt that from 1 AD on there was even one set of chain armor made that wasn't riveted till modern reenactors got started.


I imagine the economic advantage of chain over plate was pretty good, too. Making a chain garment may be time consuming and tedious, but doesn't require a great deal of skill. It's kind of like knitting. Forging plate required a much greater degree of craftsmanship, so for a levy or man-at-arms, plate would simply be too expensive.

Kniting the armor is only the hard part if your way of getting wire is Home Depot. Chain was MORE EXPENSIVE than plate! Plate took over partly because it was CHEAP by comparison. Commoners could and did afford plate once it became the predominant armor.


If you read contemporary accounts of say, the Spaniards in South America, they faced off against Incan armies that outnumbered them ten or thirty to one. Of course, the Incans were clad in armor made from fabric, wielded wooden clubs, had no mounts and no metal, and all were suffering the depredations of European diseases, like smallpox or influenza.

Regardless, there were A LOT of troops against the Spaniards, and when you've got that many darts coming at you, some are bound to hit a weakened spot in your armor or punch through a joint or something.

Which explains why the Europeans were wiped out to the last man when a few hundred of them attacked the 5,000 picked and relatively healthy men of the Incan Emperor's guard. Oh, whoops, they put squads in the exits to the square and killed EVERYONE they wanted too, because the entire force of Incans couldn't overrun even one squad to get the emperor out. They tried and the armor stopped them.

Seriously, there are lots of reasons the Incas and Aztecs lost. The Incas were just finishing a civil war, the Aztecs subject tribes hated them and would ally with ANYONE to get rid of them, both were being hit hard by disease, neither had the social organization to ignore a captured monarch and keep fighting.

But ultimately European victory depended on the fact that the natives couldn't overrun even small groups of European infantry, and that heavily depended on the fact that the armor stopped the vast majority of what would otherwise have been killing or crippling blows.

[No brains]

Plate took over partly because it was CHEAP by comparison. Commoners could and did afford plate once it became the predominant armor.


Are you certain of this? I thought that the standard schmuck armor was the brigandine, something kinda sorta analogous to scale in that it had small plates, but tucked into a double layered leather vest. Then again, I might be thinking of the wrong time period...

I remember that wearing armor was a pretty exclusive right given how expensive any suit of steel made not to cause agony must have been, and that people often had to make due with no armor except maybe their best jacket...

[JaronK]

...I figured when I heard about knights falling and being unable to get up that we were talking about Agincourt. But that was a very special case... the mud there is quite specific, and it sticks to the feet while sucking you in. Basically, they were fighting in almost quicksand. Yes, in this case knights fell and couldn't get up, and some even drowned in the mud. But that's due to the location, and that is NOT standard.

JaronK

[SoC175]

I Admit Defeat

so my furthr reading has unearthed a few qualifing statements that need to be applied to the assertion tht a fallen man in full plate cat get up. from wiki pedia to you --
"When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as having been knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#The_main_French_assaultThat was after the french had the glorious idea to walk toward them through a field of deep mud. I once did that with normal clothes and it was already really exhausting. In the end I even lost a shoe that was sunken in so deep that my foot came finally up without it and I couldn't even pull it out with my arms either


...I figured when I heard about knights falling and being unable to get up that we were talking about Agincourt. But that was a very special case... The thing one must also remember about falling from a horse is that a person knocked from a horse is unlikely to get up anyway.

There's the blow that knocked her from the horse and then the impact from the uncontrolled fall. Both are likely to be enough to knock out or even kill the person.

[faceroll]

Someday you should look up what drawing wire represented in terms of labor at that time.

Riviting every single link was the EASY PART of making chain armor. Seriously. It's not even close.

I doubt that from 1 AD on there was even one set of chain armor made that wasn't riveted till modern reenactors got started.



Kniting the armor is only the hard part if your way of getting wire is Home Depot. Chain was MORE EXPENSIVE than plate! Plate took over partly because it was CHEAP by comparison. Commoners could and did afford plate once it became the predominant armor.

Oh damn, I guess drawing wire WOULD be really hard. Never thought of that. Why was it, though, that chain was a man-at-arms piece of equipment, and plate was worn by knights?


Which explains why the Europeans were wiped out to the last man when a few hundred of them attacked the 5,000 picked and relatively healthy men of the Incan Emperor's guard. Oh, whoops, they put squads in the exits to the square and killed EVERYONE they wanted too, because the entire force of Incans couldn't overrun even one squad to get the emperor out. They tried and the armor stopped them.

Seriously, there are lots of reasons the Incas and Aztecs lost. The Incas were just finishing a civil war, the Aztecs subject tribes hated them and would ally with ANYONE to get rid of them, both were being hit hard by disease, neither had the social organization to ignore a captured monarch and keep fighting.

But ultimately European victory depended on the fact that the natives couldn't overrun even small groups of European infantry, and that heavily depended on the fact that the armor stopped the vast majority of what would otherwise have been killing or crippling blows.

Ok brah, that's cool, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Greenish]

Ok brah, that's cool, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.It's a public service announcement: remember to wear steel armour when conquering stone age cultures, it can save your life!

[Anderlith]

I've worn a chain shirt (& fought in it) it sucks, after fighting I wanted to lie down so that the weight would get off my shoulders.

I've worn field plate (& fought in it) it's awesome, tons of movement & maneuverability, & it doesn't feel like a a sweater with 10 lbs. of weight on the hem & shoulders.

real plate should be 8/+3 real chain shirt should be 2/+2

[Zen Master]

I'm a bit late to the whole 'getting back up if knocked down in fullplate armor party' .... but

Getting back on your feet isn't as effortless as it seems. Or, if you're young and fit it is - but if you're overweight, it gets harder. If your weightdistribution is changed - say from a heavy backpack - it gets harder. Grab a 20 pound sack of potatoes, hold it to your chest, lie down and get up again without letting go.

The sack of potatoes isn't entirely fair - since it restricts use of your hands - but it serves to illustrate none the less.

So let us assume for just a second that the mideaval ruling elite weren't all fit, young and healthy, but may have been to some degree .... lets say like the ruling elite today: Fat, elderly and in less than optimal shape.

Would fullplate make it harder for them to stand up? Oh yea. Not necessarily just because of the armor tho.

[Spiryt]

Oh damn, I guess drawing wire WOULD be really hard. Never thought of that. Why was it, though, that chain was a man-at-arms piece of equipment, and plate was worn by knights?


:smallconfused: :smallconfused:

It wasn't?

In the age of mail and knights from 1000 - ~ 1350 knights were clad in mail. From toes to eyes often, depending on many things.

There are a lot of traces of scale, lammellar being used here and there, but the whole scarcity of evidence of their use makes it clear that anyone who was able to obtain the best armor possible, was obtaining full mail of good quality.

Once plate had developed fully in 15th century, it mostly took the place, mail being relegated to the role of secondary armor - because it still excelled at covering joints and other places damn hard to cover with more stiff armors.

This:

Chain was MORE EXPENSIVE than plate! Plate took over partly because it was CHEAP by comparison. Commoners could and did afford plate once it became the predominant armor.

Is a bit of exaggeration, but yes, more elaborate parts of mail in 15th century could be often more expensive than O.K. quality breastplates etc.

Mostly due to the fact that working hours of high level craftsman had became much more precious and expensive during the 14th century due to Black Death and many other circumstances.

All in all never was mail "for man at arms" and not for knights...

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So let us assume for just a second that the mideaval ruling elite weren't all fit, young and healthy, but may have been to some degree .... lets say like the ruling elite today: Fat, elderly and in less than optimal shape.

Why would we assume that? Have we any reason to? If your livelihood depended upon your being fit and in good shape (regardless of age) with the penalty for being unfit and out of shape being, effectively, death, then it seems a bit ridiculous to assume that the rulers (and the fighters, who weren't necessarily the same people in all cases) were fat and in less than optimal shape.

[kamikasei]

Why would we assume that? Have we any reason to?
...All of history? The idea that any "ruling elite" would be completely free of members who would indulge themselves with the power their position affords even at the cost of their effectiveness at the role their position is supposed to be about is a bit... optimistic. Keeping yourself in perfect fighting trim for your entire adult life is hard. It'd be much more surprising if every medieval knight and lord took their martial responsibilities totally seriously than if at least some of them slacked off and then found themselves obliged to fight when they thought they could avoid it.

This is based on reading exactly what Acromos wrote, mind - "that [they] weren't all fit, young and healthy", i.e., any number may have been but some weren't. Your response seems as though you've read that differently - "that [they] all weren't..." - that none were. That, I agree, is implausible.

[Spiryt]

In case when they weren't very fit, they probably were often in the position when they actually wouldn't fight personally in most cases, leading their lances or general feudal vassals to the battle, without being first in line.

Keeping it up with the thread though - if you're not very fit and ready for battle, you have even more reason to be armored if you don't want your body to become handicapped further. :smallwink:

[Doug Lampert]

Are you certain of this? I thought that the standard schmuck armor was the brigandine, something kinda sorta analogous to scale in that it had small plates, but tucked into a double layered leather vest. Then again, I might be thinking of the wrong time period...

I remember that wearing armor was a pretty exclusive right given how expensive any suit of steel made not to cause agony must have been, and that people often had to make due with no armor except maybe their best jacket...

It's basically a time period thing. D&D and other games tend to treat armor from different periods as all available at the same time, since plate is the best armor there must be some game-mechanical reason for the others to exist.

But in the real world by 1600 or so ordinary quite common and not at all wealthy pikemen had plate armor, not full field plate but a decent back and breast piece. And other forms of armor were largely non-existent.

That's really less than 300 years after a time when there simply wasn't any plate available. Plate was manufactured in large factories and exported across Europe and replaced other armor almost as fast as it could be manufactured. For any given degree of protection it was (a) cheaper and (b) ligher (at least after you account for padding).

The knight in shining plate armor is fairly recent. And within 100 years or so of his appearance we have tapestries showing common archers in plate armor.

Now full gothic face hardened field plate with rivited plate joints was quite possibly the most expensive personal armor in history. But it was also very rare, most plate was a back and breast with a helmet and maybe some limited arm and leg protection, and that was possibly the cheapest really effective armor in the history of the world.

[kamikasei]

...most plate was a back and breast with a helmet and maybe some limited arm and leg protection...
In D&D terms, isn't that simply a breastplate?

[Partysan]

I wanted to say stuff, but most of it has already been said.
So I'll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIl2v0C1k&feature=relmfu) just leave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahyhBeBsys&feature=relmfu) those here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-syLrpHt8w&feature=relmfu).

[McStabbington]

1) Obesity was actually celebrated as a sign of wealth in the Middle Ages, since only the wealthy could get enough to eat to become obese. But they were also well aware of how hard it was to fight when obese, which is why you usually see a transition to obesity after the king/noble is no longer actively expected to engage in combat, or prized in women who were never expected to fight. Henry VIII, for instance, was famed for being overweight in his later years, but in his youth he was fairly uniformly described as being incredibly fit and handsome. Similarly, Richard III was described as being as strong as an ox throughout his entire life; he only became viewed as misshapen and ugly after Shakespeare got through with his hatchet job (which is to be expected, since his Queen, Elizabeth I, was the granddaughter of the man who killed him and took the crown from him: Henry Tudor).

2) Full Plate is a bit of a misnomer, since what you are talking about is a general type of armor, of which there were many local varieties, that became prevalent in the late middle ages between the roughly the reign of Edward I (circa 1300) and the development of gunpowder-powered projectile weapons.

But so far as you can class all those local varieties as one type of armor, the full plate was about as good an armor as you can get. It's fully articulated, it only weighs about 60 lbs, and it's actually weighted better than modern protection, since our backpacks and plate distribute most of the weight onto the shoulders of soldiers, whereas a suit of full plate distributed the weight evenly across the hips and shoulders. Even modern users unaccustomed to armor can do sit ups, jumping jacks and somersaults in full armor without fatiguing themselves, and medieval wearers trained to use it for years and usually had suits of armor personally fitted to them for less restriction of mobility.

Put simply, there is a reason why the mounted knight became, with two exceptions, the pre-eminent weapon on the open field after Hastings, and why between Hastings and Crecy the side who employed mounted knights charging in unison never lost: because the armor was that good. It turned out that full plate was not unbeatable, since there were two weapons that could reliably breach full plate: the Welsh yew longbow that the English used, and the Mongol recurved shortbow. Both can put well over 100 lbs of pull behind their arrows, which means that they can punch a steel arrow tip right through full plate. There are stories, in fact, about the Mongol recurved shortbow driving arrows completely through the leg armor, leg, and into the horse beneath. Which is why the English and the Mongols were able to beat medieval knights and the cataphracts of Eastern Europe, respectively: the English used "hedgehog" formations of pikemen to ward their longbowmen while the bows were busily pin-cushioning knights, and the Mongols just retreated and circled the slower armored knights while feathering them in any open field engagement. But both were reliant upon natural components and manufacturing techniques that were not readily available, and absent those necessary technologies, you just did not beat the charge of an armored fist of mounted knights in full plate. Even well-trained, well-disciplined infantry like the Varangians Harold II used against William the Conqueror just couldn't hold against repeated mounted charges.

3) Full plate isn't as good, and chain shirts are better, as their real-life counterparts largely because there are game balance considerations in D&D that just don't apply to the real world. In the real world, unless you had a reliable firearm, a yew longbow that you've trained with for 20 years, or a Mongol recurved shortbow with as much training and enough strength to pull the drawstring back, you won against full plate so seldomly as to be effectively zero chance.

[Doug Lampert]

In D&D terms, isn't that simply a breastplate?

Yes.

DougL

[Spiryt]

Put simply, there is a reason why the mounted knight became, with two exceptions, the pre-eminent weapon on the open field after Hastings, and why between Hastings and Crecy the side who employed mounted knights charging in unison never lost: because the armor was that good. It turned out that full plate was not unbeatable, since there were two weapons that could reliably breach full plate: the Welsh yew longbow that the English used, and the Mongol recurved shortbow. Both can put well over 100 lbs of pull behind their arrows, which means that they can punch a steel arrow tip right through full plate. There are stories, in fact, about the Mongol recurved shortbow driving arrows completely through the leg armor, leg, and into the horse beneath. Which is why the English and the Mongols were able to beat medieval knights and the cataphracts of Eastern Europe, respectively: the English used "hedgehog" formations of pikemen to ward their longbowmen while the bows were busily pin-cushioning knights, and the Mongols just retreated and circled the slower armored knights while feathering them in any open field engagement. But both were reliant upon natural components and manufacturing techniques that were not readily available, and absent those necessary technologies, you just did not beat the charge of an armored fist of mounted knights in full plate. Even well-trained, well-disciplined infantry like the Varangians Harold II used against William the Conqueror just couldn't hold against repeated mounted charges.

This is another lot of simplifications this thread could really do without....



the side who employed mounted knights charging in unison never lost: because the armor was that good.

So there was no defeats of charging force at Courtrai, Bannockburn, the Battle of Hasting even, that were in fact largely won by trickery, archery and generally combined forces, while uphill chargers were being repelled all day?

What about battles were two knightly forced faced each other?

Secondly, armor was in no way deciding factor in great success of heavy cavalry in medieval.... Important certainly, but...


since there were two weapons that could reliably breach full plate: the Welsh yew longbow that the English used, and the Mongol recurved shortbow. Both can put well over 100 lbs of pull behind their arrows, which means that they can punch a steel arrow tip right through full plate. There are stories, in fact, about the Mongol recurved shortbow driving arrows completely through the leg armor, leg, and into the horse beneath.

What about crossbows, maces, alshpiesses, hammers and other stuff?

Both medieval accounts and modern experiments show that heavy bows doesn't really have very impressive armor piercing qualities compared to many other stuff...


Which is why the English and the Mongols were able to beat medieval knights and the cataphracts of Eastern Europe, respectively: the English used "hedgehog" formations of pikemen to ward their longbowmen while the bows were busily pin-cushioning knights,

English, weren't really using pike formations, more like bills, spears, and all other stuff, pike becomes generally prevalent much later.

English holding this stuff were more than often dismounted knights, just to be precise.


and the Mongols just retreated and circled the slower armored knights while feathering them in any open field engagement.

Mongol were more than often very solidly armored themselves.


of which there were many local varieties, that became prevalent in the late middle ages between the roughly the reign of Edward I (circa 1300) and the development of gunpowder-powered projectile weapons.

Well, so between circa 1300 and circa 1370 (and that's just for more usable firearm) ? Plate really kicked in much later....

[The_Jackal]

Real life doesn't have touch attacks, and few medieval battles took place with water hazards.

[SoC175]

Funny fact is that during the battle of Azincourt there were hardly any casulties due to longbows beating plate armor. The initial charge failed not because the longbows killed the knights, but because the hurt the less armored horses and caused the to panic.

After that the knights carried out their glorious plan of hiking through the muddy field toward the English lines and did so while under a rain of longbow fired arrows. Again they did that with hardly any casualties while the arrows simply bounces of their plate armor.

They were then killed due to being to tired from the trek to put up much of a fight, but not because they were shoot by the longbows.

[Doug Lampert]

Funny fact is that during the battle of Azincourt there were hardly any casulties due to longbows beating plate armor. The initial charge failed not because the longbows killed the knights, but because the hurt the less armored horses and caused the to panic.

After that the knights carried out their glorious plan of hiking through the muddy field toward the English lines and did so while under a rain of longbow fired arrows. Again they did that with hardly any casualties while the arrows simply bounces of their plate armor.

They were then killed due to being to tired from the trek to put up much of a fight, but not because they were shoot by the longbows.

I think it's pretty generally agreed that the longbows also caused the French to tighten their line excessively and defeated the French crossbow force.

And don't underestimate the importance of forcing the French knights to fight on foot. They were considered Europe's preeminent mounted force, while the English men-at-arms were typically better armored, better disciplined, and better trained in infantry combat.

Getting the French to fight on foot was a fair fraction of beating them.

But yes. The archers emptied their quivers (at point blank range into tightly bunched knights) and expended most of the reserve arrows from the baggage train and then charged on foot because the bows simply weren't killing or disabling French knights or men-at-arms in significant numbers.

[No brains]

Remember: this thread was set up to whine about chain armor, not plate, but what I have learned is fascinating.


I wanted to say stuff, but most of it has already been said.
So I'll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIl2v0C1k&feature=relmfu) just leave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lahyhBeBsys&feature=relmfu) those here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-syLrpHt8w&feature=relmfu).

Thank you very much for the link- I found it all very informative.

Thinking about it, even if chain wasn't amazingly dependable, what it did do to help survive injuries must have been considered, and if you're fighting a few thousand men, that little degree of protection would be appreciated.

This is also a probable reason for unarmored dueling to become popular; in a mass battle, few could coordinate an armor piercing attack amid the mosh of enemies and allies, so chain's inability to to stand against someone specifically trying to pierce it would not have mattered, but if you were fighting someone only one-on-one, then they may have the opportunity to actually thoughtfully circumvent any armor an opponent may be wearing.

Also: inferior recreation has pulled the maille over my eyes again! It would not have mattered if it were Eastern mail that was actually worn in just that way, but the crappy production ruined that too!

Thank you again, everyone.

[Hanuman]

1) Obesity was actually celebrated as a sign of wealth in the Middle Ages, since only the wealthy could get enough to eat to become obese. But they were also well aware of how hard it was to fight when obese, which is why you usually see a transition to obesity after the king/noble is no longer actively expected to engage in combat, or prized in women who were never expected to fight. Henry VIII, for instance, was famed for being overweight in his later years, but in his youth he was fairly uniformly described as being incredibly fit and handsome. Similarly, Richard III was described as being as strong as an ox throughout his entire life; he only became viewed as misshapen and ugly after Shakespeare got through with his hatchet job (which is to be expected, since his Queen, Elizabeth I, was the granddaughter of the man who killed him and took the crown from him: Henry Tudor).
Properly grounded, mass is power and most of my lineage's martial arts masters hit their prime just under 300lbs but were still swift and graceful as cats. It can be genetic, it can be properly connected and relaxed muscle which appears as fat, and it can be a useful tool such as in taiji or sumo art forms.

As a disclaimer, obesity is now taken as a sign of lack of education or lack of care for ones self and is actually classified as an illness. I don't approve of it, especially for those that represent it as a lack of physical health. To quote nathan explosion:


>> Nathan: Murderface, you're a huge, fat pig because our manager is too busy and you're overfeeding yourself like a dumb animal.

[McStabbington]

Properly grounded, mass is power and most of my lineage's martial arts masters hit their prime just under 300lbs but were still swift and graceful as cats. It can be genetic, it can be properly connected and relaxed muscle which appears as fat, and it can be a useful tool such as in taiji or sumo art forms.

As a disclaimer, obesity is now taken as a sign of lack of education or lack of care for ones self and is actually classified as an illness. I don't approve of it, especially for those that represent it as a lack of physical health. To quote nathan explosion:

. . .With respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said. In fact, it has the exact opposite. If you had read what I said, you would see that the very first words I typed were to the effect that however we see obesity, they saw it as a sign of wealth and prestige. It was, in other words, a positive good in their eyes to be obese, because it meant that one either was so secure that he did not need to fight, or was so wealthy that plenty of men could fight for you.

Moreover, if you had bothered to look at the life of the people I was citing, you'll see that one I described, accurately, as "enormously strong" and "not a cripple", and the other died of symptoms modern researchers believe was untreated Type II diabetes as a consequence of years of little to no physical exertion. Since I took the liberty of doing some cursory research, just in the off-chance that my memory had failed me about Henry VIII, the indolence was actually caused by a jousting accident that reopened an ulcerated leg wound. Henry quite literally couldn't be as active as he once was, because walking or riding was excruciating for him. Which again, has nothing to do with taiji, sumo, martial arts, or any contemporary conceptions about obesity except insofar as the fact that Henry VIII only partly falls within the ambit of contemporary views of obesity: yes, he was sickly at the same time that he was overweight, but it had very little to do with his own actions and a great deal to do with an injury that he had no control over and couldn't remedy.

You will note that only once in my discussion have I made any mention of contemporary views of obesity, and at no point endorsed them. For what it's worth, I appreciate the stigma that obesity has in contemporary society, and the fact that "obese" is often wrongly conflated with "weak". But I didn't say anything about it. If I'm going to be blamed for something, I would vastly prefer at least getting the benefit of doing it first.

[Hanuman]

Calm down bud, was just making a quick in on the general subject of obesity.

[Flickerdart]

Wasn't the great thing about knights not their mail, but their stirrups, which let them put their horse's weight and momentum into their blows without falling off? That's what I've read anyway.

[WhiteHarness]

Of course, armor itself has never been that effective. Spanish Conquistadors had plate mail (generally only wearing the cuirass if you look at most of the artwork), but the Aztecs they were conquering could pierce it with an atlatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl).
I hear that one repeated all the time by atl-atl enthusiasts.

It isn't true.

Contrary to the popular image of the conquistador, they did not wear all that much plate armour in the Americas. None of the accounts of surviving conquistadores reference plate armour being pierced. There are, however, accounts of the padded cotton armour they adapted in great numbers from the natives being penetrated, as well as one account of a Seminole bow sending arrows through a coat of (chain)mail. There is zero evidence that any native weapons were able to penetrate steel plate.

Also, I want to know how your arrived at the conclusion that "armor itself has never been that effective." Offer support for this assertion, please, because I am of the opposite opinion. Convince me.

[WhiteHarness]

turned out that full plate was not unbeatable, since there were two weapons that could reliably breach full plate: the Welsh yew longbow that the English used, and the Mongol recurved shortbow. Both can put well over 100 lbs of pull behind their arrows, which means that they can punch a steel arrow tip right through full plate. There are stories, in fact, about the Mongol recurved shortbow driving arrows completely through the leg armor, leg, and into the horse beneath.
The story you're referencing about the arrow piercing the leg armour, leg, and horse beneath isn't about Mongols. It comes from Geraldus Cambrensis, and is referring to a Welsh bow. Oh, and it relates an anecdote that happened in the 12th century--a long, long time before full plate armour; the armour pierced in that account was nothing but (chain)mail.

In fact, Bertrandon de la Broquiére noted, in his Voyage d´Outremer, that a brigandine or a light white harness (it may be surmised that a heavy white harness would perform even better) would suffice for protection against arrows fired from the bows of the steppe nomad cultures. The Mongols were not good at piercing steel plate armour; their heyday came during the age of mail, not plate.

Regarding the pop-culture idea you repeat that the longbow was a reliable armour-piercer, I submit to you this essay that I wrote a while back, and post anytime I encounter the tired old "l0ngb0wz R awes0me!" myth on the internet:

Remember that at Agincourt the French armoured men-at-arms did in fact reach the English line, and were defeated in hand-to-hand combat, not by archery. The high casualty figures for the men-at-arms are probably the result of Henry ordering all prisoners to be slaughtered after they were captured and bound.

Also, remember that Agincourt is the last of the great English longbow victories. It did not prove as effective against advancing armour technology. Plate armour won the conflict with the longbow. Sure, there was a back-and-forth, and at times the longbow even had the upper hand at a few points in the 14th century, but ultimately plate armour prevailed. It took the advent of effective firearms to drive armour from the battlefield. William Turner, writing hudreds of years later in the late 17th century argues that longbow use should be revived because, "...arrows would do more mischief than formerly they did: since neither men nor horses are so well armed now to resist them, as in former ages they used to be." Essentially, he believed that a force of longbowmen would be effective in battle since they can shoot more quickly than musketeers, but also because soldiers would be vulnerable to the arrows precisely because they no longer made a practice of wearing armour into battle. He acknowledges that armour defeated arrows and drove the longbow from its once-exalted position on the battlefield. A century later, none other than Benjamin Franklin would echo his words.

The longbow won at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt simply because the English got to pick the battlefield and made the French fight on their terms, which included placing their longbowmen behind substantial field fortifications. What conclusion should we draw from the results of other battles in which English archers were ridden down by the very heavy cavalry whose bane they supposedly were? In the batle of Patay, that's just what happened. Where was the longbow's armour-piercing power then?

I submit the following passage from Dr. Michael Lacy's paper on the Effectiveness of Medieval Knightly Armour. This portion deals with the battle of Flodden (1513) wherein the Scots fielded a force clad in the latest plate infantry armours mass-produced on the Continent:

"...the longbow, so decisive in the wars of the last century, was defeated by the heavy German armour of the Scottish front ranks; a contemporary accounts describe them as "most assuredly harnesed" in armour, and that they "abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which sore them annoyed but yet except it hit them in some bare place, did them no hurt." Bishop Ruthal, writing 10 days after the battle remarked "they were so well cased in armour that the arrows did them no harm, and were such large and stout men that one would not fall when four or five bills struck them."

That's right, contemporary English chroniclers reveal that the longbow did not pierce armour. Other accounts from Poitiers and Brouwershaven (1426) tell similar stories, to say nothing of reports of battles from the English dynastic struggle known as the Wars of the Roses in which both sides turned the longbow on each other, in which it is specially pointed out that Lords Clifford and Dacre were not vulnerable to arrows until they had lifted their visors to drink or shout or breathe.

More near the time of Agincourt, here is a passage from the biography of Don Pero Niño, a Spanish privateer, who raided the English coast a couple of years before Agincourt:

"...they (the Spanish) were so near them (the English) that they could easily tell the fair men from the dark...the standard and he who bore it were likewise riddled with arrows, and the standard bearer had as many round his body as a bull in the ring, but he was shielded by his good armour"

For what it's worth, that standard bearer was none other than the author of this account himself, Gutierre Diaz de Gamez. It is noteworthy that his plate armour enabled him to survive a close-range arrow onslaught and live to write this passage years later.

The longbow was not the "king of the battlefield," the magical nuclear armour-piercer that its fanboys want you to believe. It was only effective under certain controlled circumstances, and even then was mostly an anti-cavalry weapon. Don't buy the hype. Don't misunderstand me--the English were awesome during the early part of the Hundred Years War, but it was because of their strategic expertise, and canny use of combined arms tactics, not because they possessed some magical, battle-winning wonder weapon.

I do not say that most of the casualties at Agincourt are the result of Henry's slaughtering of prisoners, but it can't be denied that that action did indeed inflate the numbers of men of rank who perished there.

I think I do make mention of the fact that the English were caught out in the open as being a decisive factor in the French victory. Again, IMO the English longbow seems to prevail over armoured men only if the English get to choose the ground and have time to set up their stakes and such beforehand.

I have lately dug up another account in support of armour stopping arrows. This is from a letter written by one Jehan Baugey, and dated 16 September 1475:

"That Monday after supper the English (mercenary longbowmen) quarreled over a wench and wanted to kill each other. As soon as the duke (of Burgundy) heard of this, he went to them with a few people to appease them but they, not recognizing the duke, as they claimed, shot two or three times directly at him with their bows. (The arrows went) very near his head and it was extraordinarily lucky that he was not killed, for he had no armour on at all."

The Burgundians had been hiring English longbowmen as mercenaries for decades at this point, and would have been intimately familiar with the power of the longbow. Yet they still expected that plate armour would have saved a man if he were struck by one of those arrows. What conclusion should we draw from this?

Here is a passage from Vaughan's Philip the Good that deals with the battle of Brouwershaven:

"...they (The English) returned fire with their deadly long-bows and drove the Dutch back in disorder. However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily-armed knights, who now arrived on the scene. The chronicler points out that Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet."

Here, not only do we again have the expectation that a helmet would have saved one man, but a direct statement that the arrows from those longbows made no impression on the (presumably plate-clad) knights.

So there you are: evidence from several primary sources attesting to the ineffectiveness of longbows against steel plate armour. I can't seem to find any sources stating that arrows killed men through plate armour.

I politely call on you to graciously reconsider your position on the subject.

[WhiteHarness]

I just want to add that, thanks to this thread, I am now aware that my "Armour Aerobics" video is referenced on TVTropes.org.

I am tickled. :smallbiggrin:

[McStabbington]

The story you're referencing about the arrow piercing the leg armour, leg, and horse beneath isn't about Mongols. It comes from Geraldus Cambrensis, and is referring to a Welsh bow. Oh, and it relates an anecdote that happened in the 12th century--a long, long time before full plate armour; the armour pierced in that account was nothing but (chain)mail.

In fact, Bertrandon de la Broquiére noted, in his Voyage d´Outremer, that a brigandine or a light white harness (it may be surmised that a heavy white harness would perform even better) would suffice for protection against arrows fired from the bows of the steppe nomad cultures. The Mongols were not good at piercing steel plate armour; their heyday came during the age of mail, not plate.

Regarding the pop-culture idea you repeat that the longbow was a reliable armour-piercer, I submit to you this essay that I wrote a while back, and post anytime I encounter the tired old "l0ngb0wz R awes0me!" myth on the internet:

No, the story I was referencing was a story regarding a Mongol recurved bow going through the scale of a member of a Russian cataphract. Admittedly, given the similarity, one or both may be apocryphal.

Further, I would point out that half of the difficulty is that what you're insisting is chain, I call plate. The difference between ring maille and plate as the armor of choice in the medieval world was one of evolution, not a stark divide. Long before Gothic plate became popular in the 1400's, armorers were putting plate strips over maille, and they referred to this mixture as plate armor to distinguish it from the standard ring maille. The increasing prevalence of plate over maille, as well as the increasing use of plate on its own rather than plate backed by maille, was partly a result of economics (plate requires less time and labor to construct than maille, but requires better forging than most areas in Europe could provide until the 1300's), and partly the result of maille just not cutting it against English bowmen. It's not all that surprising that their heyday only lasted 100 years, and doesn't defeat my argument.

Finally, I would point out that I hardly said longbows are awesome, or that longbows kill everything; if anything, I believe the point of my argument was that plate was far superior to maille, albeit not invulnerable. In point of fact, I would note that my post and your essay seem to agree: your essay states that longbows are good when used in tandem with well-disciplined infantry. My post states that English bowmen at Crecy and Agincourt did well when screened by the schiltron formation that the English had learned from the Scots. I don't see any contradiction between those two points at all.

But perhaps I was unclear, so let me be more so: the English longbow was not a one-shot wonder weapon. English bowmen were not Legolas' busily feathering the medieval battlefield. They had some significant drawbacks: in order to build a man's strength up sufficiently to use a yew longbow correctly, you had to train him for years. And if you did not screen your longbowmen properly by terrain or supporting infantry, they would be massacred, not single-handedly win the battle on their own. Rather, the strength of the English longbow was that when you get a hell of a lot of them together, they were the closest medieval equivalent to field artillery: they could lay down a barrage on an area that would kill anyone who was not wearing what, prior to about late 15th century, would be considered a ridiculously advanced, ridiculously expensive suit of armor. This could occur out to distances of 300m, longer than any other bow could reliably manage. And even those people who were wearing such suits, such as the front ranks of knights at Agincourt, still had to deal with the psychological impact of walking through a rain of arrows, the loss of their less protected horses, and the need to carry their shield over their face for over two football fields through what was pretty close to quicksand while facing those dangers.

So if I may, let me get back to what I was thinking was the main point of my argument. Between Hastings and Crecy, the thinking of medieval strategists was simple: if we have more mounted knights with what at the time they would call plate, then we win. Bannockburn didn't defeat this thinking, because the knights were never really employed effectively. Courtrai didn't defeat this thinking, because the lesson people drew from that was not one of a defect of plate, but the fact that they were beaten by the river they couldn't cross. Hastings itself should have been seen as a challenge to this thinking, since the Varangians held their hills against multiple charges (IIRC, William I lost something like six mounts to Harold's axes that day), and were only beaten because William feigned a retreat twice, and each time pulled sections of the shield wall off the hill to be cut to ribbons. But whatever strategists should have drawn from Hastings, Bannockburn and Courtrai, they didn't. Mounted knights in plate were still seen as the ultimate weapon in any battle. It was Crecy and Agincourt that broke this view, and the longbows of the Englishmen did much to do it. If one turned one's attention east, the mounted archers of the Mongols were doing similar things to the heavily armored cataphracts of the Russians and Bulgars. The unifying characteristic between the two: both had access to what were the two most powerful ranged weapons in existence at the time. Both had a pull draw in excess of 140 lbs (by comparison, most contemporary bows have a pull draw of around 65) and could beat the best armor of their day.

[No brains]

There was mention earlier of fat and fighting ability, and that got me thinking:

If someone could be fat and spatially aware of their girth, wouldn't the extra padding actually serve to protect organs from shallow puncture wounds? This came up a few times in conversations with other people...

[Zadhadras]

Here is a very nice video about plate armour and the myths that have grown up around it. Its long, so to get to the best bits you can start at 34 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

[erikun]

There was mention earlier of fat and fighting ability, and that got me thinking:

If someone could be fat and spatially aware of their girth, wouldn't the extra padding actually serve to protect organs from shallow puncture wounds? This came up a few times in conversations with other people...
Technically yes, but I imagine you'd have a lot of problems. First, any thrusting action is not going to care about how much fat is in the way - it won't slow the momentium down to any significant degree. Second, for a fatter (girthier?) person who get gets slashed but not hit in a vital organ, a much slimmer person would not have been struck at all.

Third, having a large laceration is going to cause major problems even if your intestines aren't cut in half. You now need to deal with bleeding out, not to mention becoming disembowled if the wound is large enough.

[faceroll]

Technically yes, but I imagine you'd have a lot of problems. First, any thrusting action is not going to care about how much fat is in the way - it won't slow the momentium down to any significant degree. Second, for a fatter (girthier?) person who get gets slashed but not hit in a vital organ, a much slimmer person would not have been struck at all.

Third, having a large laceration is going to cause major problems even if your intestines aren't cut in half. You now need to deal with bleeding out, not to mention becoming disembowled if the wound is large enough.

Or an infection. Fat doesn't have great circulation. Wounds don't flush as well.

[Hanuman]

Technically yes, but I imagine you'd have a lot of problems. First, any thrusting action is not going to care about how much fat is in the way - it won't slow the momentium down to any significant degree. Second, for a fatter (girthier?) person who get gets slashed but not hit in a vital organ, a much slimmer person would not have been struck at all.

Third, having a large laceration is going to cause major problems even if your intestines aren't cut in half. You now need to deal with bleeding out, not to mention becoming disembowled if the wound is large enough.
Any injury, especially anything that loses blood, blunt force trauma, or causes pain is going to put the system into shock, being overweight generally implies you don't exercise for hours at a time and therefore have not trained your body to metabolize the stress hormones created from exercising, making you both physically and mentally unfit to deal with injury or exertion.

A hammer hits you in the stomach, doesn't matter how fat you are-- you'll probably go into shock before the guy who has 6 pack abs and breaks a rib does.


Or an infection. Fat doesn't have great circulation. Wounds don't flush as well.
Lack of circulation IMO is more of a cause of becoming overweight than a result of it, but I mean full body circulation of all of it's systems. I know people with amazing circulatory systems who are overweight simply because they exercise in a low intensity way that smooths and relaxes their inner structure, and when you get old you either push yourself or gain weight, and pushing yourself while it strengthens the heart doesn't necessarily improve overall circulation ease.

[Gwendol]

When performed by out-of-shape interns, not by individuals in fighting trim, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

snip...

Part of the linked article is either complete BS, or simply Not Doing It Right. In particular:

If a suit of armor restricts your breathing, then it is not properly fitted to you. This is a failure in the scientists knowing how the hell to put it on someone, which can easily double the effort it takes to move around in it.

It's perfectly clear they've never heard of a garter, since the original purpose was to take the load of the greaves off the legs and onto the hips, more evenly distributed across the body.

Properly distributed, you move around in plate just as fast as you do without it. Hell, with adrenaline going in a fight, you don't notice a DAMN thing, except who is comin' after you with a blade, until the whole thing is over.

I seriously contest this last statement. On the one hand we have a quantifiable statement in a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal, on the other a personal opinion published on an RPG forum on the internet. My vote goes to science; their findings stand until proven wrong.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I seriously contest this last statement. On the one hand we have a quantifiable statement in a scientific article published in a peer reviewed journal, on the other a personal opinion published on an RPG forum on the internet. My vote goes to science; their findings stand until proven wrong.

You are welcome to believe, or not believe, whatever you feel like. All I know is from personal, first hand experience, having made and worn the stuff, my experiences.

Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Gwendol]

Quite frankly, the idea that putting on 30-50 kg of extra weight in no way intereferes with movement or speed, or is even noticed is prepostrous. Not to mention impossible on a very basic level.

Newton's second law: F=ma is pretty much all I need to say here. Our knight in heavy armor will be changing his vector quite a few times in a battle, and to do that he needs to use force. The force used is proportional to mass, and his mass has increased by around 30 - 50%, and so at a minimum, he will have to use that much extra force to move about.
Applying all that extra force expends more energy, no matter how fit you are.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Quite frankly, the idea that putting on 30-50 kg of extra weight in no way intereferes with movement or speed, or is even noticed is prepostrous. Not to mention impossible on a very basic level.

Newton's second law: F=ma is pretty much all I need to say here. Our knight in heavy armor will be changing his vector quite a few times in a battle, and to do that he needs to use force. The force used is proportional to mass, and his mass has increased by around 30 - 50%, and so at a minimum, he will have to use that much extra force to move about.
Applying all that extra force expends more energy, no matter how fit you are.

A body in motion tends to stay in motion. You use your momentum, and the weight of the armor literally helps keep you going. Using your momentum is one of the first lessons any dedicated warrior learns. They do so for a reason.

Also, I did specifically mention you don't notice it. There's likely some increase in load, however during combat, it's about the last thing you are aware of. Adrenaline boost gives you more strength than your armor weighs you down.

So no, speaking from personal experience, your armor doesn't slow you down in combat.

However, I can explicitly disprove their 'testing', because from their comments, they put it on wrong.

There's these things, they're called Garters. You might have heard of them? Before they became a fashion statement, they were used to basically hook your Greaves (metal pants) to your belt to redistribute the weight off of your legs and onto your center of mass. Yes, you're still carrying a heavier load, but it's now more balanced, and your legs are doing far less work than they would if you just put them on like pants.

[noparlpf]

Momentum aside, you do still need to use a greater amount of force to start moving or to change direction quickly. And no amount of "momentum" makes it easier to continue running in 50 lbs of armor. It just makes it harder to stop or to change direction easily.

No matter how well the weight is distributed, 50 extra lbs will slow you down significantly and lower your endurance significantly.

[Coidzor]

I dunno, I've heard that there's a fair amount of extra weight that humans can carry on their frames without it significantly effecting their general endurance as long as they're active and used to it and healthy.

And well-fitted armor that one is used to seems better distributed than bodyfat generally is for men at least, as it mostly just gets concentrated on the front of the torso.

I wonder where that threshold is anyway...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I dunno, I've heard that there's a fair amount of extra weight that humans can carry on their frames without it significantly effecting their general endurance as long as they're active and used to it and healthy. Even if they aren't active and healthy, as long as they are acclimatised to it, they can move around relatively unencumbered. Case in point: fat people generally carry an extra 50-100 lbs on their body. This doesn't significantly hamper their ability to walk around, until they hit extreme obesity.

We're not talking 'holy crap, get a cart' level here, we're talking scientifically overweight. An average man, scientifically supposed to weigh 150 lbs, actually weighing in at around 200 lbs. Such an individual notices no reduction in mobility whatsoever.

[Johnny H]

Umm... Right now this post seems to be really out of place here, since it actually refers to the OP's quandary, and ignores all the other (interesting) subjects that have appeared in this thread.

I'm Polish and can confirm that yes, here in Poland we used chain mail for a very long time. The tiny rings (no more than 5mm in diameter) used in our version of this armor granted better protection against piercing weapons, and helped distribute a blow's kinetic energy more evenly upon impact.

However, in the eyes of our crazy royalty, the increased protection was only an added benefit, whereas tiny rings actually became popular cause they were more esthetically and thematically pleasing. They were seen as oriental-themed, which was a big thing with Polish royalty (who saw themselves as descended from the Sarmatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Appearance)).

[Gwendol]

Gaining momentum only helps you going in a straight line. As soon as you need to change direction, or already in a swordfight; circle an opponent, you need to change your vector which will expend more energy the heavier you are. The point of the OP and of this discussion is that while plate or other really heavy armor gives superior protection, it comes at a price. The price is you burn your energy reserves faster, and in drawn out battles may come back to bite you in the behind.

No matter your level of armor mastery or fitness, the laws of physics are still the same: it takes a proportionally greater amount of force to move a heavier object.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Gaining momentum only helps you going in a straight line. As soon as you need to change direction, or already in a swordfight; circle an opponent, you need to change your vector which will expend more energy the heavier you are. The point of the OP and of this discussion is that while plate or other really heavy armor gives superior protection, it comes at a price. The price is you burn your energy reserves faster, and in drawn out battles may come back to bite you in the behind.

No matter your level of armor mastery or fitness, the laws of physics are still the same: it takes a proportionally greater amount of force to move a heavier object.

Hey, if that's what you want to believe, you go ahead and believe that. As I said earlier... quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

[Johnny H]

Yes, but if the armor's weight is distributed correctly (which it is if you know how to put armor on properly, and even more so if it was made specifically for you) than the extra strain isn't anything a fit person can't handle. Especially if they've spent 10+ years training to accustom themselves to this drawback. It's possible to be able to fight for a couple hours without even noticing the extra 25 lb, and all you'd be doing would be exchanging a small percentage of your speed and maneuverability for a HUGE increase in protection. So I say it's worth it.

I haven't actually played with any form of armor, but I run marathons. My coach makes me run in this special jacket with lead (10kg=22lb) distributed all around it. I have this sort of training for 3h two times a weak. It's not easy, but it's doable. If knights and other warriors paraded in armor a lot more often than I do in my jacket, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Gwendol]

I don't have to believe: I have the laws of physics :smallsmile:

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I don't have to believe: I have the laws of physics :smallsmile:

Yes, but they're not saying there is no difference, they're saying that the difference isn't particularly noticeable, in the heat of the moment. And that would be under the purview of Psychology not Physics :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Which is just applied biology anyway.

Though, it certainly seems that it'd be a bit difficult to get an accurate model of how a human would perform in such armor in its intended use, due to not really having a population to draw from that's bred and raised from birth for this kind of thing.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but they're not saying there is no difference, they're saying that the difference isn't particularly noticeable, in the heat of the moment. And that would be under the purview of Psychology not Physics :smallbiggrin:

I acknowledge that. I'm simply saying that no matter how you feel; you will be expending more energy, the minimum being proportional to the amount of weight you put on, every time you need to accelerate (change your vector). With that in mind it's not hard to realize that wearing that much armor (+30-50 kg) will wear them down no matter how fit or conditioned they may be.

There is simply no way around the laws of physics.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I acknowledge that. I'm simply saying that no matter how you feel; you will be expending more energy, the minimum being proportional to the amount of weight you put on, every time you need to accelerate (change your vector). With that in mind it's not hard to realize that wearing that much armor (+30-50 kg) will wear them down no matter how fit or conditioned they may be.

There is simply no way around the laws of physics.

Come back and talk about 'physics' after you've actually taken the class, and we'll discuss it further.

Come back with degrees in (or at least rudimentary knowledge of) Kinesthesiology and Engineering, and you might be able to understand the conversation better.

Comprehension of gains in muscle density through exercise to produce greater force for the same caloric output will also help explain this phenomenon.

Bleating 'two legs good, four legs bad' will not.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I acknowledge that. I'm simply saying that no matter how you feel; you will be expending more energy, the minimum being proportional to the amount of weight you put on, every time you need to accelerate (change your vector). With that in mind it's not hard to realize that wearing that much armor (+30-50 kg) will wear them down no matter how fit or conditioned they may be.

As Shneekey says, a person in better shape will have more efficient muscles (more force/calorie) which means that, in fact, someone wearing that much armor won't necessarily be unduly worn down "no matter how fit or conditioned they may be." At least, not any more so than they would be for undergoing strenuous (and stressful, if in a life-or-death situation) exercise for an extended period.


There is simply no way around the laws of physics.

What if I go really really fast or get really really small? Yeah, yeah, not really applicable to the conversation. However, it's silly to use these unqualified statements when they can be shown to be objectively false.

[No brains]

Umm... Right now this post seems to be really out of place here, since it actually refers to the OP's quandary, and ignores all the other (interesting) subjects that have appeared in this thread.

I'm Polish and can confirm that yes, here in Poland we used chain mail for a very long time. The tiny rings (no more than 5mm in diameter) used in our version of this armor granted better protection against piercing weapons, and helped distribute a blow's kinetic energy more evenly upon impact.

However, in the eyes of our crazy royalty, the increased protection was only an added benefit, whereas tiny rings actually became popular cause they were more esthetically and thematically pleasing. They were seen as oriental-themed, which was a big thing with Polish royalty (who saw themselves as descended from the Sarmatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians#Appearance)).

That's very interesting. Thank you for sharing that with me.:smallsmile:I had always wondered what people had thought about the way chain looked as well as how it functioned. Now is five millimeters the diameter of the whole ring or the thickness of the wire? Sorry, ignorant American.


I acknowledge that. I'm simply saying that no matter how you feel; you will be expending more energy, the minimum being proportional to the amount of weight you put on, every time you need to accelerate (change your vector). With that in mind it's not hard to realize that wearing that much armor (+30-50 kg) will wear them down no matter how fit or conditioned they may be.

There is simply no way around the laws of physics.

It seems a little funny to me that you have so few good things to say about armor when you have a dwarf warrior avatar.

More seriously, I think you're way out of range with your estimations of how heavy any armor was. I know, despite my American ignorance that 30kg is over sixty pounds, which is about as heavy as the all time heaviest armor worn for tournament jousting was.

Also, the normal soldier nowadays has to compete with wearing total weights of around sixty pounds themselves, but they manage to do that.

[Spiryt]

More seriously, I think you're way out of range with your estimations of how heavy any armor was. I know, despite my American ignorance that 30kg is over sixty pounds, which is about as heavy as the all time heaviest armor worn for tournament jousting was.


Not quite, field armors could very well reach that weight, especially for bigger individuals.

Jousting one could be way heavier, even though they were obviously often not complete.

Hopes that link works (http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=60514&viewType=detailView)

Not that it changes anything.

[magwaaf]

A little piece of my childhood died as I got to that age we all reach when we learn IRL chain armor is actually kinda crappy. It's damn heavy, it sags on you with all that weight, and its no big chore to penetrate it.

However, this isn't the case in 3.5... Chain Shirt is possibly the best armor available. If you have good dexterity, you're matching the AC of full plate with only the slimmest of penalties. Why is this? Is it the legacy of that mithril shirt in LotR? Is the idea that an agile enough person can can really get the most out of the teensy protection the links provide?

I do know that some heed is paid to chain's flaws as full chain only adds 1 to the AC bonus while devouring all the mobility you would enjoy in a chain wife-beater (Celt-beater?). Is IRL chain armor also favorable in small portions?

All views would be appreciated.

where do you get your info saying a chain mail shirt sucks? it stops slashing attacks and weaker piercing attacks, it is very flexible and unencumbering, they aren't heavy if you aren't ya know overly weak. i love chain armor, especially when worn with gambeson, as long as you don't take a major life threatening hit than it protects you just fine

[Gwendol]

Come back and talk about 'physics' after you've actually taken the class, and we'll discuss it further.

Come back with degrees in (or at least rudimentary knowledge of) Kinesthesiology and Engineering, and you might be able to understand the conversation better.

Comprehension of gains in muscle density through exercise to produce greater force for the same caloric output will also help explain this phenomenon.

Bleating 'two legs good, four legs bad' will not.

LOL! I have a PhD in physics and an MSc in engineering physics and used to do research at Princeton (now working for industry).
No matter how well the weight is distributed you still end up with carrying it standing on two legs. That same person, burdened with the weight of plate armor (or any heavy armor), gaining some 30 - 50% extra weight, will have to expend more energy to move about. One way of understanding why comes from looking at Newton's second law. It says nothing of the subjects ability to produce this extra energy; if the subject is fit he will be able to, and under a sustained period of time at that until his energy reserves run out. Had he carried less weight he would have been able to carry on for longer.

To say that a persons (apparant) weight can increase with 30 - 50% with no effect on performance or stamina under great physical strain just doesn't add up.
I'm not disputing the fact that someone who is well-conditioned can move about just fine under a heavy load, just that they are expending significantly more energy while doing so.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

LOL! I have a PhD in physics and an MSc in engineering physics and used to do research at Princeton (now working for industry).
No matter how well the weight is distributed you still end up with carrying it standing on two legs. That same person, burdened with the weight of plate armor (or any heavy armor), gaining some 30 - 50% extra weight, will have to expend more energy to move about. One way of understanding why comes from looking at Newton's second law. It says nothing of the subjects ability to produce this extra energy; if the subject is fit he will be able to, and under a sustained period of time at that until his energy reserves run out. Had he carried less weight he would have been able to carry on for longer.

To say that a persons (apparant) weight can increase with 30 - 50% with no effect on performance or stamina under great physical strain just doesn't add up.
I'm not disputing the fact that someone who is well-conditioned can move about just fine under a heavy load, just that they are expending significantly more energy while doing so.

Right, but you're not talking mechanics,you're talking biomechanics, which develop some very odd and interesting properties. Namely an increase in efficiency in energy exchange which more than offsets the increase in energy required to propel the object forward. And before you cry about breaking the laws of thermodynamics, allow me to explain it to you thusly:

Muscle biomass of a typical adult human, particularly a sedentary science geek, is not particularly efficent at exchanging caloric energy (biomass fuel) to kenetic force (application of said force).

Muscle biomass of a fit human, such as a martial artist, Olympic athlete, professional sports player, or other such individual is much more efficient at that energy exchange.

An adrenaline flight or fight response also releases endorphins and other chemicals which also increase this efficiency and furthermore shut down certain biomechanical regulatory safety interlocks (you don't feel pain, and you don't feel exhaustion until after it is over, and you can actually get a lot more effort out of your muscles). The amount of increase an adrenaline response provides is easily more than enough to offset the extra load of the armor in question.

Then you introduce something akin to a Pavlov effect, the act of donning the armor for war is a mental trigger for the individual in question to engage in this adrenaline response. So the act of increasing load also triggers a higher level of efficiency in the system to compensate for the load increase.

To bring it into an example which will relate to your (doubtful at best) mechanical engineering perspective:

You have an engine which produces a set amount of energy, which is attached to a device which moves. The act of increasing load also engages a gear-shift system to increase the mechanical advantage of the gears to offset the increase load to show no noticeable decrease in performance.

The amount of additional energy required to propel the device is equal or less than the additional mechanical advantage the gear shift provides. Does it increase wear on the system? Yes. That's one of the reasons the life expectancy of the individuals of the time was around 35.

Does that make any sense to you now?

[Feytalist]

A small point:

Someone might have mentioned it before, but I'm honestly too lazy to go read through the thread to make sure.

They make shark armour (or anti-shark armour, I should say) these days that is surprisingly similar to chain mail, and by all accounts it works quite well.

So I guess chain mail is useful for shark attacks, if you somehow forgot your shark repellent in your batmobile.


As to the *other* discussion, I can only say that I hike. And I know that a backpack packed with enough supplies for 7 days, if not fastened and fitted properly for you, is a nightmare. One that fits properly is barely noticeable, even when weighing over 20kg. I'm assuming the same goes with armour, full army kit or any sort of other worn weight. And I haven't had any training with my backpack, or even a decent amount of experience. I'm assuming anyone with any form of armour would.

[Gwendol]

When you hike you strive to keep your pace even, no? That way the "amount" of acceleration is minimized, and thus you are conserving energy (because once you keep your speed you are not expending that much energy compared with when you don't carry a heavy load). Think "coasting". Try doing the same thing when changing your vector all the time and note the difference.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

When you hike you strive to keep your pace even, no? That way the "amount" of acceleration is minimized, and thus you are conserving energy (because once you keep your speed you are not expending that much energy compared with when you don't carry a heavy load). Think "coasting". Try doing the same thing when changing your vector all the time and note the difference.

Circles, my friend, they're wonderful things. Take a good look at fighting styles. They almost always incorporate them, particularly armored styles designed to use weapons.

Specifically, keep your delta-v low and constant, and it requires minimal effort to alter trajectory. The traditional method of using claymores, for example, is basically swinging them around in figure-eights, while pressing forward.

Furthermore, blades that were used by armored knights, being broad and relatively flat, can somewhat act as an airfoil, using wind resistance to assist in maintaining the arc. Not much, granted, in fact, on an absolute scale the impact is probably very minimal. Some of the falchions I've seen even have a very odd blade shape with one side of the edge wider than the other, and can actually take advantage of Bernoulli's principle to generate 'lift' in the direction of the delta-v for the arc. Again, in an absolute sense, the contribution is fairly minimal, but again, we're still talking about gradual applications of delta-v to produce wide, sweeping arcs, and every little bit helps.

Some 'hard style' martial arts uses acute angles and straight-line attacks to be able to impact at the perpendicular and apply maximum force to break an object (or the hand, whichever comes first).

However, as you have pointed out, that much Delta-V is going to be ruinous on your endurance. So most armored styles use more circular motions to conserve endurance by graduating the application of delta-v to minimize energy expenditure.

And when you've got a fifteen pound hunk of metal swinging at 40mph with a 1/8" striking surface (most swords used for this purpose are exceedingly blunt), it doesn't matter if it hits precisely on the perpendicular or not... if it's a human, it's not going to be feeling very happy.

Therein, of course, lies the reason for armor... because blades rarely strike directly on the perpendicular, and the armor itself is shaped with curves to deflect incoming kenetic force, a blade will tend to glance off of armor.

Which is why knights were so fearsome in combat, even unhorsed... they could ignore the majority of blows aimed at them, while wading through unarmored peasants armed with spears they don't know how to use properly.

[Gwendol]

Yup, I don't argue with that. Need to keep moving at all times to conserve momentum (or loose energy).

[Gwendol]

Muscle biomass of a typical adult human, particularly a sedentary science geek, is not particularly efficent at exchanging caloric energy (biomass fuel) to kenetic force (application of said force).

Muscle biomass of a fit human, such as a martial artist, Olympic athlete, professional sports player, or other such individual is much more efficient at that energy exchange.



I've practiced fencing (foil and saber), ju-jutsu, karate, and rugby (played hooker) competitively for 10+ years. I can certainly relate to pre-match adrenalin getting the uniform on and adjusting the mouthpiece :smallwink:

[noparlpf]

Just one thing: most swords were under six pounds. The typical hand-and-a-half to two-handed swords used in Europe were typically four or five pounds at the most. They just feel so much heavier because of torque; they're long and the center of mass when you're holding a sword at, say, 45 degrees is generally going to be at least 30 cm from your top hand. And your hand and wrist are already some distance from your elbow and shoulder.

As for the armor thing: I suppose well-fitted armor does have the weight distributed well. Hiking is another thing, though, because you do try to keep to one pace in more or less one direction. I carried a 110-pound girl on my back for over a mile (on a fairly level surface) at a normal walking pace with little difficulty early this summer. Marching in armor shouldn't be too difficult, but in actual battle it's the adrenaline and the techniques that conserve momentum that make it possible to fight while so burdened.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Just one thing: most swords were under six pounds. The typical hand-and-a-half to two-handed swords used in Europe were typically four or five pounds at the most. They just feel so much heavier because of torque; they're long and the center of mass when you're holding a sword at, say, 45 degrees is generally going to be at least 30 cm from your top hand. And your hand and wrist are already some distance from your elbow and shoulder. Ahh, quite true.

I was already thinking maces, because that's about the only thing that's going to go through plate mail in a melee, barring an exceedingly lucky shot.


As for the armor thing: Marching in armor shouldn't be too difficult, but in actual battle it's the adrenaline and the techniques that conserve momentum that make it possible to fight while so burdened.

Precisely.

And, of course, that was also the weakness of the unhorsed knight... he *had* to keep his momentum going or he would exhaust himself too easily. And watching his pattern, you can strike chinks in the armor from oblique angles if you know when and where he is going to be. It may be efficient, but it's also predictable, which is a definite drawback in combat.

[Spiryt]

I was already thinking maces, because that's about the only thing that's going to go through plate mail in a melee, barring an exceedingly lucky shot

To be fair, mace obviously weren't weighing 15 pounds either, so I wasn't sure what was the meaning of that sentence.

I thought that you added arm driving the sword into equation, which is quite logical, but "metal" didn't fit in. :smallwink:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

To be fair, mace obviously weren't weighing 15 pounds either, so I wasn't sure what was the meaning of that sentence.

I thought that you added arm driving the sword into equation, which is quite logical, but "metal" didn't fit in. :smallwink:

Probably, honestly I don't know, really. Call it a brain fart.

However, maces really do weight that much... that's what makes them so lethal... all that mass comin' down on you HURTS.

[Greenish]

6 kg? That's a sledgehammer, not a weapon. :smallconfused:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

6 kg? That's a sledgehammer, not a weapon. :smallconfused:

Where do you think a sledgehammer came from? It's original use was to punch through full plate, or at least kill a man in full plate, despite the protection, through hydrostatic shock from the force of the impact.

[Greenish]

Where do you think a sledgehammer came from?A hammer? I mean, it's not like the basic idea is anything new.


It's original use was to punch through full plate, or at least kill a man in full plate, despite the protection, through hydrostatic shock from the force of the impact.Circles or no, swinging 15 lbs weight in the end of a stick strikes me as very impractical in combat, but I'm probably talking out of my arse, so feel free to show me the error in my ways.

[Partysan]

I don't think a 6kg hammer can be used in one hand (except when mounted) and on top of my head I can't remember anything about twohanded warhammers used in battle. I might be wrong about that, though.

[Spiryt]

However, maces really do weight that much... that's what makes them so lethal... all that mass comin' down on you HURTS.

That would mean that the piece of steel/bronze mounted on a haft, sometimes ferrous as well, rarely exceeding 60 cm in lenght would weight two times more than largest two handed swords, axes and hammers found in late Medieval in Renaissance... :smallconfused:

I've never seen mace close that heavy, it's in fact hard to imagine it - piece of metal of that limited size would have to be seriously overbuilt to exceed 10 pounds....

I don't think it would really strike that hard, as it would be all kinds of sluggish and immobile compared to proper mace that can offer swift movement of both weapon and arm/hip move into the blow.

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=904

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=905

A lot of weights listed (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15182&highlight=mace)


EDIT:

I see things went further while I was collecting links on my recent super slow connection....


Where do you think a sledgehammer came from? It's original use was to punch through full plate, or at least kill a man in full plate, despite the protection, through hydrostatic shock from the force of the impact.

Original use was to demolish stones and stuff, there's nothing similar to "battle sledgehammer" found in the pictures, mentions, let alone actual archaeological finds... :smallconfused:

Save from some things that look like they have "modern" flat hammer heads visible on some art, but nothing suggest they're particularly heavy.

Although I don't think 6kg two handed hammer was out of question, it seems like absolute top.

[herrhauptmann]

Where do you think a sledgehammer came from? It's original use was to punch through full plate, or at least kill a man in full plate, despite the protection, through hydrostatic shock from the force of the impact.

I think people had hammer technology well before the middle ages. So sledgehammers would have been around for a long time in a civilian capacity. While maces/clubs, have been around just as long, but for combat. Different tasks, different shapes.

But I'll agree with the earlier assertion that hammers and maces were effective against a man in plate armor. Far more so than a single-handed sword would be.
Either the spikes would penetrate the plate (like a pick does), or the impact would deform the armor. Whether the metal went back to its normal shape or not, the bones underneath would've been broken.

Also, maces don't have to be heavy to deal damage (under 6 pounds). All their weight is concentrated up near the head, in other words, the business end. If you still think it's necessary for a mace to be extremely heavy, try taking a broomstick or tree branch. Duct tape a few pounds of metal near the middle of it, and swing it around. Then try again, but with the weights near the end. See how differently it handles? See how much harder you're hitting a target?


Here's one I got my hands on recently. Not heavy to carry around, but difficult to hold one handed.
http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-539-16th-century-italian-mace.aspx (So glad I didn't buy it)

[Safety Sword]

The thing about a large, blunt weapon is that no matter how heavy or thick your armour happens to be the impact is also very likely to unbalance you. Even more if you hit a thigh or knee that you happen to have weight on at the time. :smalleek:

If you fall down it does tend to give your opponent ample head squashing time. :smallyuk:

By the way, I prefer my combat hand to hand and without all the armor, but I do know that kicking the thigh or knee joint tends to have this result.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

If you fall down it does tend to give your opponent ample head squashing time. :smallyuk: Stop, drop, and roll! But yes, disorientation can be a problem.


By the way, I prefer my combat hand to hand and without all the armor, but I do know that kicking the thigh or knee joint tends to have this result.

Against an unarmed and unarmored opponent, that would very easily disable and permanently injure someone.

Against someone with properly fitted greaves? You'll break your foot first. This coming from someone who has taken in Ju-Juitsu, TKD, and had a friend he sparred with who did kickboxing (heh, and you should've seen the look on people's faces when I brought his shin block to the next TKD tournament with me).

And you'd still have to avoid the eight foot swath of death in front of him. Granted, for a trained martial artist, not *too* difficult, but still complicates matters.

[Safety Sword]

Stop, drop, and roll! But yes, disorientation can be a problem.



Against an unarmed and unarmored opponent, that would very easily disable and permanently injure someone.

Against someone with properly fitted greaves? You'll break your foot first. This coming from someone who has taken in Ju-Juitsu, TKD, and had a friend he sparred with who did kickboxing (heh, and you should've seen the look on people's faces when I brought his shin block to the next TKD tournament with me).

And you'd still have to avoid the eight foot swath of death in front of him. Granted, for a trained martial artist, not *too* difficult, but still complicates matters.
I totally agree, armored opponents would be difficult to permanently disable (read: kill) unarmed. And yes, the big slashy thing tends to complicate closing to optimum range. Once, anyway. I wonder if a finger strike would get through the visor on a suit of plate mail... :smallamused:

Anyway, must concentrate on work :smallyuk: