What they don't know is that the armor is enchanted, Elder Scrolls style.
Is it a full body enchantment or just the metal bits being enchanted? If it's just the metal bits being enchanted then she's better off just wearing enchanted leather jerkins.
...or dodge. The less encumbering armor - the more chance to evade attack given enough agility and reaction time. Plates on arms/legs are worn for hard block and parry, also protect limbs from being chop off. As for bra-armor... there is RL piece of uniform for female law enforcers, but they are made of kevlar, not metal shells.
Well, this set is rather for distraction that for protection, as said in one post with ''breast-plate'' :
...or dodge. The less encumbering armor - the more chance to evade attack given enough agility and reaction time. Plates on arms/legs are worn for hard block and parry, also protect limbs from being chop off. As for bra-armor... there is RL piece of uniform for female law enforcers, but they are made of kevlar, not metal shells.
Well, this set is rather for distraction that for protection, as said in one post with ''breast-plate'' :
You are far more likely to notice the slab of steel flying towards your face than the boobs half-visible from behind your shield in the chaos of battle.
You are far more likely to notice the slab of steel flying towards your face than the boobs half-visible from behind your shield in the chaos of battle.
...or dodge. The less encumbering armor - the more chance to evade attack given enough agility and reaction time. Plates on arms/legs are worn for hard block and parry, also protect limbs from being chop off. As for bra-armor... there is RL piece of uniform for female law enforcers, but they are made of kevlar, not metal shells.
Well, this set is rather for distraction that for protection, as said in one post with ''breast-plate'' :
The problem with dodging or parrying in that armor is that the parts of her body that needs to be flexible (arms, legs) are being encumbered by plates of metal while parts that needs a lot of protection (internal organs) are mostly exposed and begging to be stabbed by the ornaments on the armor.
The problem with dodging or parrying in that armor is that the parts of her body that needs to be flexible (arms, legs) are being encumbered by plates of metal while parts that needs a lot of protection (internal organs) are mostly exposed and begging to be stabbed by the ornaments on the armor.
That's not an armor, that's a suicide device.
Dodging is also highly situational. Even if you have the flexibility (and skill and speed) to dodge an incoming attack, it doesn't mean the terrain/your allies will allow it. There is no point in dodging if it means jumping off a cliff or breaking your unit's formation when a good shield is all you need.
I've always seen those high shoulder/arm plates that extend above the head. Does that provide any meaninngful defence? Seems kinda flimsy to me since that piece is constantly moving with your arm. I'm sure it might block the occasional arrow but I can't see those deflecting a good axe or sword swing. Seems like a waste of Iron/resources.
I've always seen those high shoulder/arm plates that extend above the head. Does that provide any meaningful defence? Seems kinda flimsy to me since that piece is constantly moving with your arm. I'm sure it might block the occasional arrow but I can't see those deflecting a good axe or sword swing. Seems like a waste of Iron/resources.
While there are armors with flanges on its pauldrons intended to protect the neck, they almost never go above the heads. A more reasonable example is like in post #2023333.
The shoulder pieces picture here would probably be hazardous to the head of the users, like that guy in the right, because raising their arms will make the pauldron whack their own heads like a frying pan.
I've always seen those high shoulder/arm plates that extend above the head. Does that provide any meaninngful defence? Seems kinda flimsy to me since that piece is constantly moving with your arm. I'm sure it might block the occasional arrow but I can't see those deflecting a good axe or sword swing. Seems like a waste of Iron/resources.
Armorsmiths generally assumed that the user was right handed and therefore the right hand/arm/shoulder needed maximum mobility. That meant the LEFT hand/arm/shoulder was the shield arm and therefore less mobile.
You wouldn't rely on it to stop a good axe or sword swing, but it also meant that if you are at that point, it means the enemy has already gotten past your shield so don't complain and take what little you can.
The problem with dodging or parrying in that armor is that the parts of her body that needs to be flexible (arms, legs) are being encumbered by plates of metal while parts that needs a lot of protection (internal organs) are mostly exposed and begging to be stabbed by the ornaments on the armor.
That's not an armor, that's a suicide device.
The bikini armour is pretty damned pointless for reducing encumbrance. Wear leather jerkins and breeches, u casul!
Also to add, any armour that does not allow full articulation of the limbs is a man-shaped coffin, and the armoursmith ought to be introduced to an executioner's axe for coming up with that in the first place.
MMaestro said:
Dodging is also highly situational. Even if you have the flexibility (and skill and speed) to dodge an incoming attack, it doesn't mean the terrain/your allies will allow it. There is no point in dodging if it means jumping off a cliff or breaking your unit's formation when a good shield is all you need.
Surprising as it sounds, a fully armoured knight can actually dodge blows pretty decently if the situation permits it. Anybody who can't do a 100 meter sprint and leap onto a horse while donned in a full suit of armour needs more physical conditioning and has no business being in that suit of armour in the first place.
MMaestro said:
Armorsmiths generally assumed that the user was right handed and therefore the right hand/arm/shoulder needed maximum mobility. That meant the LEFT hand/arm/shoulder was the shield arm and therefore less mobile.
You wouldn't rely on it to stop a good axe or sword swing, but it also meant that if you are at that point, it means the enemy has already gotten past your shield so don't complain and take what little you can.
Any armoursmith who designed a full plate armour that does not deflect a bladed weapon is not doing his job. Full plate armour is very, very good at deflecting sword-cuts and axe-cuts, which was what necessitated the creation of maces and the development of entire swordsmanship techniques e.g. half-swording (to allow for more control of the blade for easier jabbing through gaps in the armour).
My assumption was about using arm's armor against bladed weapon as hard block or deflecting it. And I just noticed that only her left arm is armored.
Also no one said about weapon/armor pairing so far. She can be archer, but pauldron is unnecessary and that bra design ain't good for bowstring either.
More likely she left-handed and can use lightweight spear suitable to operate it one-handed paired with shield situated in front of her.
I'm aware that we discussing pointless and impractical set to begin with.
Mincemaker said: Surprising as it sounds, a fully armoured knight can actually dodge blows pretty decently if the situation permits it. Anybody who can't do a 100 meter sprint and leap onto a horse while donned in a full suit of armour needs more physical conditioning and has no business being in that suit of armour in the first place.
Yeah, "if the situation permits it".
It doesn't matter if you can do a 10 mile sprint followed by a triple flip onto a horse while wearing 3 full suits of armor one atop of each other, you're not gonna be dodging anything in a narrow castle corridor.
Use a shield.
Mincemaker said: Any armoursmith who designed a full plate armour that does not deflect a bladed weapon is not doing his job. Full plate armour is very, very good at deflecting sword-cuts and axe-cuts, which was what necessitated the creation of maces and the development of entire swordsmanship techniques e.g. half-swording (to allow for more control of the blade for easier jabbing through gaps in the armour).
Any armorsmith who can make a full plate armor that can consistently deflect bladed attacks on every part of the body would be richer than the Pope.
You're assuming a LOT of theoretical ideals. Can a full plate armor deflect a bladed weapon? Sure. Can said armor do so across the entire body? Probably not. Can said armor be produced in the tens/hundreds/thousands with the same level of quality? No. Can said armor be properly fitted for the tens/hundreds/thousands of nameless soldiers? LOLNO!
You're assuming a LOT of theoretical ideals. Can a full plate armor deflect a bladed weapon? Sure. Can said armor do so across the entire body? Probably not. Can said armor be produced in the tens/hundreds/thousands with the same level of quality? No. Can said armor be properly fitted for the tens/hundreds/thousands of nameless soldiers? LOLNO!
Well, personal body armor isn't supposed to be mass-produced in the first place - that's in the realm of the Industrial Revolution, plus the technology to mass-produce iron or steel at a rate we're thinking is well beyond the age of knights and swordsmen.
Every body armor of the age was made by hand, therefore of course quality will be different - that's a given. It's also a given that properly fitting those soldiers into their armor is a tedious and mind-numbingly boring job. That's why only the rich folks could afford plate armor. The common soldier has to make-do with hauberk (your basic mail shirt) or metal plates sewn to the backside of a leather shirt. Soo those armies of plate armor-wearing soldiers? Only possible in the realm of Hollywood, video games and cartoons.
Human anatomy also dictates which parts can be properly armored and which parts will always be vulnerable - think joints and you'll see you can never be 100% invulnerable. However, the enemy only has so much opportunity to hit those vulnerable spots. Often times, that only happens if you've been pinned down. By then, God help you that they're planning on taking you for ransom, because that's about the only thing you can do.
What I remember that changed armor was the region, the resources, available technology or more importantly gunpowder
Region determined the focus of the armor since techniques of fighting varied plate for piercing and chain for slashes if I am not mistaken. Different parts of the body were prioritized the vitals were the main heart and lungs. Then extremities legs and arms.
I remember i was interested in the evolution of helmets like why the flat top helmets were considered dangerous cause blows from above were not deflected but caused the concussive force to go straight into the wearer.
Resource availability used to affect the amount of metal in armor from studs to strips usually on leather. To full metal armor with leather clasps. Also determined the weapon type that would be prevalent in an area the same applied for region.
Technology changed armor everytime something new came in like tempering which made armor stronger and could reduce the weight. The big shift was always the introduction of gunpowder armor at first got thicker but as firearms got more prevalent and efficient armor was not able to keep up mobility became the priority. This also attributed to because of the change in the way battles were fought as well.
I think my knowledge is a bit dated and might be off in some places as this is coming from memory.
AdventZero said: Well, personal body armor isn't supposed to be mass-produced in the first place - that's in the realm of the Industrial Revolution, plus the technology to mass-produce iron or steel at a rate we're thinking is well beyond the age of knights and swordsmen.
Every body armor of the age was made by hand, therefore of course quality will be different - that's a given. It's also a given that properly fitting those soldiers into their armor is a tedious and mind-numbingly boring job. That's why only the rich folks could afford plate armor. The common soldier has to make-do with hauberk (your basic mail shirt) or metal plates sewn to the backside of a leather shirt. Soo those armies of plate armor-wearing soldiers? Only possible in the realm of Hollywood, video games and cartoons.
Human anatomy also dictates which parts can be properly armored and which parts will always be vulnerable - think joints and you'll see you can never be 100% invulnerable. However, the enemy only has so much opportunity to hit those vulnerable spots. Often times, that only happens if you've been pinned down. By then, God help you that they're planning on taking you for ransom, because that's about the only thing you can do.
You're talking about different things. Producing large numbers doesn't necessarily mean mass production.
Again, you're assuming a lot of different things. What constitutes "rich"? How do you know they would get the full set? How do you know if they wouldn't settle for a partial set? How do you know they would even get a hauberk at all? How do you the leadership isn't bankrolling them?
AGAIN, you're talking about different things. First, NOTHING is invulnerable. Second, the vulnerability of armor depends on the weapon in question. Third, you're talking about such a specific situation that you've just grasping. If you're going to do that then I'm going to say full plate armor is bullshit and anyone who ever used it deserved to die when compared to a .50cal at the range of 500 meters.
I'm just going to chime in that if you can't afford actual plate armor, then a chain shirt worn on top of leather is probably a better investment than an ornate metal swimsuit worn on bare skin. Just sayin'.
Edit: or you can take an example form the girl in the back and at least make sure your upper torso is covered. Remember: genitals are expendable, lungs are not.
You're talking about different things. Producing large numbers doesn't necessarily mean mass production.
Again, you're assuming a lot of different things. What constitutes "rich"? How do you know they would get the full set? How do you know if they wouldn't settle for a partial set? How do you know they would even get a hauberk at all? How do you the leadership isn't bankrolling them?
AGAIN, you're talking about different things. First, NOTHING is invulnerable. Second, the vulnerability of armor depends on the weapon in question. Third, you're talking about such a specific situation that you've just grasping. If you're going to do that then I'm going to say full plate armor is bullshit and anyone who ever used it deserved to die when compared to a .50cal at the range of 500 meters.
Yes, full plate armour is not invincible. The vulnerable parts of the armour are usually the joint gaps (especially that rather large one behind the knees and under the armpits) and the visor slits. However, actually HITTING any of these parts is damnably difficult. Unless you have mates fighting alongside you to beat that knight, you won't have a shot at the knees, and getting close enough to stick a blade under the armpits usually means getting within the range of his sword. Also, most of the time the knight in question is going to have those gaps protected by mail. Just plain swinging a sword at him won't work either. It will far more likely to just slide off or get caught and the knight in question has got a free hit on you. That's why half-swording techniques were developed, but again, it is not a fool-proof method. It's a means of having better control of the blade so you can actually stab these gaps without making yourself vulnerable in the process.
Fortunately, while full plate armour is VERY good at deflecting blades, it's awful at taking blows from a blunt striking weapon like a mace or a warhammer and it can be pierced with concentrated, pin-point force (hence warpicks and close range shots with crossbows or musket shots). That is exactly why those are developed in the first place.
Remember, there is a very good reason why the heavy cavalry charge by guys in full plate armour was the dominant force on the battlefield until the development of flintlock firearms, better siege weapons and the tactical doctrines that makes full use of their abilities.
Also, it's actually not that difficult to determine what 'rich' is during the middle ages. Just look at the opulence of the court, and read the historical records. Those tend to clue you right in if the kingdom is rolling in dough and can afford to give all their heavy cavalry Gothic or Maximilian plate armour and clad their more disposable soldiers in hauberks, or if they have to make do with piss-poor brigandines.
Also as noted, fitting everybody in a full suit of plate armour is goddamn expensive, which is why only knights or elite troops get to wear them at all. If you are one of the nameless dude who has to march into a hail of arrows in a block formation, you won't be wearing full plate armour. The best you can get is a suit of chainmail (though you are far more likely to be given a brigadine and a small shield made of wood).
Finally, hauberks or brigadines. They provide decent protection and are much cheaper than full plate armour (though they aren't nearly as protective). If you are a mercenary struggling to put two coins together you will definitely want to consider getting these with your first wages. If you don't want that and insist on a piece of plate armour, you are much better off buying a steel cuirass to protect the torso and cover the rest in mail. You can live with a missing genital and possibly survive a missing arm or two, but heaven help you if someone managed to jam a blade through your gut. In those days, that is as good as a death sentence.
Yes, full plate armour is not invincible. The vulnerable parts of the armour are usually the joint gaps (especially that rather large one behind the knees and under the armpits) and the visor slits. However, actually HITTING any of these parts is damnably difficult. Unless you have mates fighting alongside you to beat that knight, you won't have a shot at the knees, and getting close enough to stick a blade under the armpits usually means getting within the range of his sword. Also, most of the time the knight in question is going to have those gaps protected by mail. Just plain swinging a sword at him won't work either. It will far more likely to just slide off or get caught and the knight in question has got a free hit on you. That's why half-swording techniques were developed, but again, it is not a fool-proof method. It's a means of having better control of the blade so you can actually stab these gaps without making yourself vulnerable in the process.
Fortunately, while full plate armour is VERY good at deflecting blades, it's awful at taking blows from a blunt striking weapon like a mace or a warhammer and it can be pierced with concentrated, pin-point force (hence warpicks and close range shots with crossbows or musket shots). That is exactly why those are developed in the first place.
You're including so many conditions that the example is meaningless. What weapon is used is similarly meaningless since the only way to satisfy your situation is to crush or decapitate the opponent's head in the first move. A sufficiently heavy blade is more than enough to crush a human skull, even one wearing a plate helmet.
Mincemaker said: Remember, there is a very good reason why the heavy cavalry charge by guys in full plate armour was the dominant force on the battlefield until the development of flintlock firearms, better siege weapons and the tactical doctrines that makes full use of their abilities.
Do you REALLY want to try going down this road?
Mincemaker said: Also, it's actually not that difficult to determine what 'rich' is during the middle ages. Just look at the opulence of the court, and read the historical records. Those tend to clue you right in if the kingdom is rolling in dough and can afford to give all their heavy cavalry Gothic or Maximilian plate armour and clad their more disposable soldiers in hauberks, or if they have to make do with piss-poor brigandines.
If you're telling someone to research the opulence of the court across centuries of history to define "rich", you have no argument. 9 times out of 10, I can point at the Vatican at any time in history in order to call everyone else a dirt eating homeless bum.
1. No bladed weapon can exceed 3kg before it becomes too unwieldy to use. For as long as a weapon has an edge it's not going to embed into the sloping surface of a helmet to actually do any damage beyond staggering the knight in question for a bit and piss him off. Your condition of a blade heavy enough to crack a helmet, is going to be so damned off-balanced and unwieldy that you are going to have a hard time lifting it, let alone swing it. And even then swinging it will very likely require a lengthy wind-up, which is enough time for the knight to just stab at you with his longsword and move out of the way.
Yes, fighting a knight in a 1v1 scenario with a bladed weapon is VERY conditional. No two ways around it. Bladed weapons was, and always will be, a piss-poor weapon to use against a knight in full plate armour.
2. I am aware of the pike formation and that didn't drive the cavalry charge to extinction. Arrows do not actually pierce plate armour very well and the archers have to rely on probability to do enough damage to stop a charge cold. That's why longbowmen were never fielded in small numbers. One arrow is not going to do anything to that mass formation of medieval tanks coming your way. It only started getting phased out starting from the late 16th century with all the damned guns showing up in the battlefield to really ruin the day.
3. I also mentioned 'historical records'. And just so you know, the Vatican did have one heck of a mercenary force at the time. Still do. They do not have regiments of knights under their command, however, and they don't need them. They can always just send a commission to any Christian kingdom and let them spend their men for the benefit of the Faith.
1. No bladed weapon can exceed 3kg before it becomes too unwieldy to use. For as long as a weapon has an edge it's not going to embed into the sloping surface of a helmet to actually do any damage beyond staggering the knight in question for a bit and piss him off. Your condition of a blade heavy enough to crack a helmet, is going to be so damned off-balanced and unwieldy that you are going to have a hard time lifting it, let alone swing it. And even then swinging it will very likely require a lengthy wind-up, which is enough time for the knight to just stab at you with his longsword and move out of the way.
Yes, fighting a knight in a 1v1 scenario with a bladed weapon is VERY conditional. No two ways around it. Bladed weapons was, and always will be, a piss-poor weapon to use against a knight in full plate armour.
2. I am aware of the pike formation and that didn't drive the cavalry charge to extinction. Arrows do not actually pierce plate armour very well and the archers have to rely on probability to do enough damage to stop a charge cold. That's why longbowmen were never fielded in small numbers. One arrow is not going to do anything to that mass formation of medieval tanks coming your way. It only started getting phased out starting from the late 16th century with all the damned guns showing up in the battlefield to really ruin the day.
3. I also mentioned 'historical records'. And just so you know, the Vatican did have one heck of a mercenary force at the time. Still do. They do not have regiments of knights under their command, however, and they don't need them. They can always just send a commission to any Christian kingdom and let them spend their men for the benefit of the Faith.
You're assuming so many things that this isn't even a hypothetical anymore. You have no argument whatsoever.
Did you even read the article? A Zweihander's typical weight is 2-3.2kg! And they weren't even used for fighting knights, they were used for cutting pikes!
Congratulations, you just went and linked a weapon that wasn't even used for dealing against enemies who wear plated armour and doesn't disprove the point that any bladed weapon heavier than 3kg is too unwieldy for use in 1v1 combat against a knight. Excellent job!
(And yes, I am aware of the exceptionally heavy Zweihander...and no mention whether the guy who lost his head was or wasn't wearing plate. I suspect he was a common pikeman, who doesn't wear plate armour and has to rely on a hauberk at best)
So what is this argument even about, again? Like, you two are really going at each other but I'm not entirely sure what question you're trying to answer. As far as I can tell, Maestro's argument is that plate armor was actually useless, so you may as well fight in swimwear because shields are better for defense anyway. I'd bet money that that's not what Maestro's actually trying to assert, though, because I'm really just clueless here.
So what is this argument even about, again? Like, you two are really going at each other but I'm not entirely sure what question you're trying to answer. As far as I can tell, Maestro's argument is that plate armor was actually useless, so you may as well fight in swimwear because shields are better for defense anyway. I'd bet money that that's not what Maestro's actually trying to assert, though, because I'm really just clueless here.
I'm arguing against the assertion that plate armour doesn't consistently deflect cuts with bladed weapons. That assertion is false. Bladed weapons do consistently slide, deflect, bounce and glance off a suit plate armour (barring the occasional freak accidents). So much so that they had to develop entire swordsmanship techniques specifically for armoured combat (centering around improvising a sword as a very short spear and as a warhammer) and develop maces and flails to deal with the troublesome plate armour. Simply swinging madly at some dude in full plate armour whilst wielding a sword or an axe is about as effective as trying to knock down a wall by banging your head against it.
Did you even read the article? A Zweihander's typical weight is 2-3.2kg! And they weren't even used for fighting knights, they were used for cutting pikes!
Congratulations, you just went and linked a weapon that wasn't even used for dealing against enemies who wear plated armour and doesn't disprove the point that any bladed weapon heavier than 3kg is too unwieldy for use in 1v1 combat against a knight. Excellent job!
(And yes, I am aware of the exceptionally heavy Zweihander...and no mention whether the guy who lost his head was or wasn't wearing plate. I suspect he was a common pikeman, who doesn't wear plate armour and has to rely on a hauberk at best)
Cause maces weren't used to fight unarmored knights right?
Next you'll be telling me that pitchforks weren't used as weapons, leather was never used as armor and only knights fought in wars.
Not every soldier in the medieval battlefield is a knight. The ones who are knights in the battlefields are the ones on the charges clad in their shiny armour hogging all the glory while the standard infantry in their cheaper leather armour or gambeson (or worse, no armour) die by the thousands. And yes, maces are just as adept at breaking bones of the unarmoured or the lightly armoured foe, but this is just a happy happenstance that is exploited. Anything that can render the protection of a plate armour moot is just as deadly against the unarmoured flesh.
And no actual army uses pitchforks for wars. Pitchforks are improvised weapons meant for desperate times, witch hunts, riots and popular uprisings only.
It's already mentioned, time and time again, that plate armour is costly to produce. I'm adding a point that it also requires many years of training and conditioning to actually move around in plate armour without tiring oneself out. You want to equip the knights, who are almost always nobility and have the time and wealth to purchase an entire set of plate armour and longsword (also very expensive compared to a halberd), shield, lance, armour for the horses, and to train themselves to use them effectively. You don't want to equip the infantry, drawn from the masses of plebs and peasants, in the same gear. Your sovereign will bankrupt itself in short order if you do that. Oh no, you just let them have the cheap stuff like any weapon that is more wood than steel (every polearm ever), train them to march in proper formations and how to understand basic commands (won't take more than a month or two) then send them out to die while you position the knights to charge for maximum effect and then hog all the glory.
There is a good reason why not every soldier in real life military gets to carry a rpg and drive a tank. That same reason is why only the few gets to wear their shiny plate armour and survive battle after battle (and with a pretty decent chance to actually retire and tell their kids about the glory days of sticking a lance up some schmuck's arse and beating up a 'lesser' knight) while everyone else gets leather and then die in a ditch a few minutes into a battle.
Not that I really want to get into this discussion, but...
Mincemaker said:
And no actual army uses pitchforks for wars. Pitchforks are improvised weapons meant for desperate times, witch hunts, riots and popular uprisings only.
Tangential note: What do you guys think of the military fork, the purpose-built weaponized version of the pitchfork? Real-life examples did survive, but what's the point of making one when a regular ol' spear would work better anyway? To catch blades and siege ladders?
Personally I'd like to interpret it that she was gullible and got conned into buying it. Already the well known story of the emperor who got convinced to pay for his own birthday suit. Quite fearsome a person who can convince you a bad idea is the greatest thing ever, all while making a profit while they're at it.
Mincemaker said: Not every soldier in the medieval battlefield is a knight. The ones who are knights in the battlefields are the ones on the charges clad in their shiny armour hogging all the glory while the standard infantry in their cheaper leather armour or gambeson (or worse, no armour) die by the thousands. And yes, maces are just as adept at breaking bones of the unarmoured or the lightly armoured foe, but this is just a happy happenstance that is exploited. Anything that can render the protection of a plate armour moot is just as deadly against the unarmoured flesh.
And no actual army uses pitchforks for wars. Pitchforks are improvised weapons meant for desperate times, witch hunts, riots and popular uprisings only.
It's already mentioned, time and time again, that plate armour is costly to produce. I'm adding a point that it also requires many years of training and conditioning to actually move around in plate armour without tiring oneself out. You want to equip the knights, who are almost always nobility and have the time and wealth to purchase an entire set of plate armour and longsword (also very expensive compared to a halberd), shield, lance, armour for the horses, and to train themselves to use them effectively. You don't want to equip the infantry, drawn from the masses of plebs and peasants, in the same gear. Your sovereign will bankrupt itself in short order if you do that. Oh no, you just let them have the cheap stuff like any weapon that is more wood than steel (every polearm ever), train them to march in proper formations and how to understand basic commands (won't take more than a month or two) then send them out to die while you position the knights to charge for maximum effect and then hog all the glory.
There is a good reason why not every soldier in real life military gets to carry a rpg and drive a tank. That same reason is why only the few gets to wear their shiny plate armour and survive battle after battle (and with a pretty decent chance to actually retire and tell their kids about the glory days of sticking a lance up some schmuck's arse and beating up a 'lesser' knight) while everyone else gets leather and then die in a ditch a few minutes into a battle.
Is rendering "the protection of a plate armour moot" the newest standard you're trying to push now? In that case, you're wrong. Water/a river/a moat beats plate armor better than it beats leather armor/unarmored flesh.
You mean desperate times/riots/popular uprisings don't occur during wartime?
And your point is meaningless in a discussion where the question is the protection of plate armor, not the time/money/training needed to produce/utilized said plate armor. No one questions the complexity in designing an internal combustion engine in a discussion about car safety features.
Specialization? Being held back until the infantry breaks the enemy's ranks? Not actually fighting on the front lines? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
Is rendering "the protection of a plate armour moot" the newest standard you're trying to push now? In that case, you're wrong. Water/a river/a moat beats plate armor better than it beats leather armor/unarmored flesh.
You can't move a river or a moat. Besides, a river beats all the things you listed. That's why it's called "Defensive Fortification." It's designed to slow down human beings, armored or not. Therefore, point moot. Besides, that's not the issue at hand here.
You mean desperate times/riots/popular uprisings don't occur during wartime?
Wartime and a proper battle are two completely different things. Even a mercenary army without any heavy cavalry (read: Knights. That's their role on the battlefield to begin with) armed with nothing but pikes and side swords will mow down an angry mob with pitchforks and axes, simply by virtue of reach and training. It's like asking if you don't take a dump after you eat...
Besides, Mincemaker's point still stands - no proper army uses pitchforks on the battlefield. A riot isn't a proper army - it's an angry mob.
And your point is meaningless in a discussion where the question is the protection of plate armor, not the time/money/training needed to produce/utilized said plate armor. No one questions the complexity in designing an internal combustion engine in a discussion about car safety features.
Economics dictate if you can properly arm and equip your army. And not everyone is going to afford full plate armor, anyway. No, armies back then don't get their gears from their lords or whoever is in charge - you have to buy everything, including your weapon.
Specialization? Being held back until the infantry breaks the enemy's ranks? Not actually fighting on the front lines? I'm not exactly sure what your point is.
You really need to brush up on your history lesson and less on Warhammer.
One thing to note here is the Knight is a Heavy Cavalry, not a soldier. A knight's role on the battlefield is the hammer that strikes at the enemy formation against the main army's column, which acts as the anvil. Their role is to charge in from the flank and break up the enemy's formation so the main body can mow down the now-scattered and chaotic infantry with ease. As seen in the Battle of Agincourt, an ill-timed charge is no better than being sent out as target practice.
The strength of a knight is in his charge - If you've ever tried to stop a 140-lb. guy charging at you, you'll understand what it's like to suddenly see a full-plated knight bearing down on you with nothing but a wooden shield between you and a longsword swinging at you at 30 mph. Do the math.
And as you realized, the knight's job isn't the "Frontliner." That's the role of pikemen up to and including the time when arquebusiers replaced the crossbowmen on the battlefield.
As surprising as it sounds, Warhammer Fantasy is fairly accurate about how the Empire army works in the battlefield, at least on tabletop. The knights are not the frontliners, they are shock-troops. The blocks of hundreds of halberdiers, the poor schmucks who die like dogs when a Chaos Warrior so much as sneeze at them? They are the frontliners and their job is to slow the enemy down (and charge into the enemy's juicy behinds with detachment rules). The guys doing the real damage however are the ones with the guns (especially the big, prone-to-malfunction ones).
Though plate armour doesn't really hold up when the enemy has daemonic weapons or were superhumanly strong and were swinging giant cleavers as heavy as a man-on-a-horse as easily as it were a bat.
And the original point being argued was on the effectiveness of plate armour and I don't see where the pitchforks come in. A peasant wielding a pitchfork is not even a challenge to a knight, who would just tank that futile stabbing and stick a sword through his ribcage. If he felt like being an arse he could also just dance around that peasant (while in plate armour), flourishing his sword alot (while in plate armour) before ending the farce with a bloody stab or decapitation, and then walk away scot-free (because what are you going to do about it? That knight owns your land and your arse).
Also, anyone caught alone with a hostile, properly geared knight while armed with a sword and clad in a hauberk is shite out of luck. What's he gonna do about that knight, wail at him by swinging wildly? That's not going to do anything even if that knight didn't draw his sword and decided to leave his shield against the wall. He's just going to stand there and make a hearty laugh while your sword keeps sliding off and glancing off before socking you with his gauntlet-clad fist.
AdventZero said: You can't move a river or a moat. Besides, a river beats all the things you listed. That's why it's called "Defensive Fortification." It's designed to slow down human beings, armored or not. Therefore, point moot. Besides, that's not the issue at hand here.
It doesn't beat a .50 cal, but my comment was modded down so it doesn't count does it?
AdventZero said:
heavy cavalry (read: Knights.
a proper army
Economics dictate
Where do I start?
AdventZero said: You really need to brush up on your history lesson and less on Warhammer.
Specializations come from Warhammer?
AdventZero said: Knight is a Heavy Cavalry, not a soldier.
140-lb. guy charging at you
when arquebusiers replaced the crossbowmen
Sigh.
Mincemaker said: And the original point being argued was on the effectiveness of plate armour and I don't see where the pitchforks come in. A peasant wielding a pitchfork is not even a challenge to a knight, who would just tank that futile stabbing and stick a sword through his ribcage. If he felt like being an arse he could also just dance around that peasant (while in plate armour), flourishing his sword alot (while in plate armour) before ending the farce with a bloody stab or decapitation, and then walk away scot-free (because what are you going to do about it? That knight owns your land and your arse).
You're talking about vague hypothetical situations (with gaming terms no less) that are meaningless to discuss. A knight that is so fearless that he would charge through a pitchfork attack AND flourish his sword skills WHILE dancing around him AND owns the land/peasant so he can do so with impunity. If a knight has THAT many things stacked in his favor? Yeah, you're right. You win.
The point being here is that yes, a knight really has THAT many things stacked in his favour by virtue of much better equipment and training (and also social status). It's not even hypothetical. This will and has happened to any serf dares to lift his fists against the knight who, btw, does literally own that piece of land he works in (being a serf that he is). By extension, he also owns that guy's arse. Even if the serf attempts to swing or stab the fully armoured knight who is in plate armour, he isn't going to really do anything beyond making the knight mock him further then send him to the gallows, if he doesn't feel like cutting his head off for that insolence.
And yes, the knight is indeed land-owning nobility. The title of 'Knight' itself is a noble title, abeit the lowest rank in the hierarchy, thus ensuring that the Knight owns the smallest piece of land in that kingdom.
Finally, on the original point, plate armour is not just a good piece of armour, it is an outstanding piece of armour that will protect a knight against just about anything that has a point or a blade. If you have to take on an armoured knight while armed with a sword, swinging that sword is about as effective as batting a wall. If you are caught in that situation, I damn well hope you know how to half-sword and have sunk many hours into perfecting it.
It doesn't beat a .50 cal, but my comment was modded down so it doesn't count does it?
I can still see your comment just fine, though you didn't answer or explain anything yet. Besides, about the only thing that can stop a .50 cal round is either an armored fighting vehicle or a dirt embankment. Besides, that's not the point.
heavy cavalry (read: Knights.
a proper army
Economics dictate
Where do I start?
Start with Heavy Cavalry, then. Then we'll end the lecture with Economics 101.
Knight is a Heavy Cavalry, not a soldier.
140-lb. guy charging at you
when arquebusiers replaced the crossbowmen
Sigh.
You really need to read a lot more. And I mean, really read a lot more. Sighing is not a valid response when you don't have anything backing it up. Besides, I'm the one that needs to sigh.
A knight is not a soldier. He is more than a soldier. Same reason why you don't call a Marine a soldier... Unless, of course, you were looking to have your teeth knocked in. I, for one, wouldn't be happy for you either way.
The "140-lb. guy charging at you" is supposed to give you a comparable picture, but I suck at converting SI to the Imperial System. Let's just say you, standing there in the middle of a flat grassy field, being charged at by a fully-geared Linebacker blitzing at you. And you're wearing nothing but your boxers.
Arquebusiers began replacing the crossbowmen around the end of the 15th century, near the end of the Hundread Years' War. Grab a history book and make yourself comfy, because you really need to read a few books on that.
Mincemaker said:
If it sounds downright unfair, yes, it really is.
It really is unfair, but that is the point of warfare in general. If you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.
The point being here is that yes, a knight really has THAT many things stacked in his favour
And yes, the knight is indeed land-owning nobility.
Finally, on the original point, plate armour is not just a good piece of armour, it is an outstanding piece of armour that will protect a knight against just about anything that has a point or a blade. If you have to take on an armoured knight while armed with a sword, swinging that sword is about as effective as batting a wall. If you are caught in that situation, I damn well hope you know how to half-sword and have sunk many hours into perfecting it.
If it sounds downright unfair, yes, it really is.
Except knights really don't. Please look up the definition of a knight.
Wrong.
Sigh.
AdventZero said: I can still see your comment just fine, though you didn't answer or explain anything yet. Besides, about the only thing that can stop a .50 cal round is either an armored fighting vehicle or a dirt embankment. Besides, that's not the point.
Mincemaker said: Anything that can render the protection of a plate armour moot is just as deadly against the unarmoured flesh.
The fact that you're responding to something not directed at you defines your entire argument.
Except knights really don't. Please look up the definition of a knight.
Wrong.
I'd like to see you explain that definition of a knight. I really can't find any article that has refuted what Mincemaker has already stated. On the other hand, you still haven't answered any of our questions yet.
By the way, the concept of knighthood did get started in the late Carolingian France (10 century) and involved even the peasant class, these peasants received land holding from their feudal lords and thus are no longer poor. By the 12th century, the concept of knighthood as we know are all influenced by those fighting in the Holy Crusades. And, yes, they were heavy shock troops in the form of heavy cavalry.
Please enlighten us why you state that knights are not as we have already said.
The fact that you're responding to something not directed at you defines your entire argument.
I don't deny it. I just want to see a healthy debate where both sides bring evidence and facts to the table and preferably not just jabbing at the air. (Well, at least I think it should. It will help to keep things civil.) I don't see you bringing in a counter-argument and instead went off on a tangent. I'm quite sorry to accost you on that, but it really ticked me off that you haven't directly answered the point that is still on the table.
Then again, perhaps we should end the public debate here and take it to private inbox so we don't clutter the comment section. (I didn't think it'd be this long.)
It really is unfair, but that is the point of warfare in general. If you're fighting fair, you're doing it wrong.
There is no such thing as 'competitive' balance in warfare. The guy with the more infantry and more weapons that counters the other guy's tactics dominates the battlefield. The guy with more men, more resources, better morale and better logistics dominates the war.
Also, the poor peasant is a knight's whipping boy. God help the pleb who has a tyrant of a knight as his master.
In case anyone wonders what 'half-swording' is, this article and video will explain it.
This is the way to make a sword useful against an armoured opponent, because regular cuts aren't going to do anything against someone who is wearing that steel shell. The objective is to stab the most vulnerable parts of the armour (joint gaps and visor slits) but as anyone knows, it doesn't always go as planned and the two warriors end up grappling.
AdventZero said: I'd like to see you explain that definition of a knight. I really can't find any article that has refuted what Mincemaker has already stated. On the other hand, you still haven't answered any of our questions yet.
By the way, the concept of knighthood did get started in the late Carolingian France (10 century) and involved even the peasant class, these peasants received land holding from their feudal lords and thus are no longer poor.
You couldn't find Wikipedia?
Land ownership =/= Rich.
AdventZero said: I don't deny it. I just want to see a healthy debate where both sides bring evidence and facts to the table and preferably not just jabbing at the air. (Well, at least I think it should. It will help to keep things civil.) I don't see you bringing in a counter-argument and instead went off on a tangent. I'm quite sorry to accost you on that, but it really ticked me off that you haven't directly answered the point that is still on the table.
Then again, perhaps we should end the public debate here and take it to private inbox so we don't clutter the comment section. (I didn't think it'd be this long.)
I presented evidence. You refused to acknowledge it. I can only assume you conceded the point.
There is no such thing as 'competitive' balance in warfare. The guy with the more infantry and more weapons that counters the other guy's tactics dominates the battlefield. The guy with more men, more resources, better morale and better logistics dominates the war.
Also, the poor peasant is a knight's whipping boy. God help the pleb who has a tyrant of a knight as his master.
In case anyone wonders what 'half-swording' is, this article and video will explain it.
This is the way to make a sword useful against an armoured opponent, because regular cuts aren't going to do anything against someone who is wearing that steel shell. The objective is to stab the most vulnerable parts of the armour (joint gaps and visor slits) but as anyone knows, it doesn't always go as planned and the two warriors end up grappling.
OP edged tools plz nerf. OP spears/blade-on-a-stick plz nerf. OP slings plz nerf. OP bows plz nerf. OP chariots plz nerf. OP hoplites plz nerf. OP legionnaires plz nerf. ALso OP pila. OP light cav. plz nerf. OP knights heavy cav. plz nerf. OP longbows plz nerf. (Nerf rejected, but terrain bonuses/penalties adjusted) OP pikemen plz nerf. OP horse archers plz nerf. OP pikemen + crossbowmen combo (pikesquare) plz nerf. OP tercio plz nerf. OP guns plz nerf. Armor don't even work! OP infantry square (in general) plz nerf OP cannons plz nerf
OP machineguns plz nerf (seriously these things are killing my guys in trenches!) OP tanks plz nerf.
OP planes plz nerf. OP missiles plz nerf. OP ICBM plz nerf. (nerfed by increasing cost. Now they cost too much)
OP drones plz nerf. OP (government-sanctioned) hackers plz nerf.
Did I miss anything important?
(Just kidding about the 'balance' part. 'though one could argue that so-called 'counters' arise 'naturally' due to the evolution of warfare.)
(Now if someone could do a naval version... I expect to see fireships in there.)
He may not necessarily be as wealthy as a baron or a duke (when you consider that those upper-ranked nobility has even more land than the knight does, and thus more serfs to collect rent from and to tax), but he will still have enough to buy a proper set of full plate armour to protect himself with in any campaign.
And this wiki page showed plainly that 'knight' is a noble rank.
...Wait. Are we even reading the same Wikipedia here? Land ownership = RICH. Only rich people owned land back then. Landowner in this day and age are still considered rich, just not super-rich. (The super-rich and multi-millionaire, though? LOTS of land in their name.) Why did you think that being a landowner doesn't mean he's rich?!
And while I see your argument, you presented tangential evidence, not direct evidence. We were discussing the virtues of armor vs. bladed weapons and you bring up .50 cal bullets and moats.
And going back to the first argument - You don't need to consistently armor every body part to be safe. You just need to protect the important parts, namely the body, the head, the arms and the legs. Joints are for mobility, so you only need to armor the outer parts and leave the gaps open. Under all that plate armor, though, even the poorest of knights still wear the hauberk underneath to ward off that lucky cut under the armpit. It'll hurt, oh, yes, but he ain't gonna be bleeding from a cut.
Even if a plate-armored warrior gets caught in a narrow corridor without a shield, he can still fend off a frontal attack just by parrying and skillful use of body armor (which is meant to deflect bladed weapons). He'd still die if he's knocked onto the ground, though to be honest that is the first thing you should do when faced with an armor-wearing enemy. That's where half-swording comes into play - by using the pommel of your sword as a makeshift mace, you knock the guy onto the ground in order to pin him down. Immobilized like that, you can take your gingerly time and stab him through the helmet eyeslit with your stiletto.
The stiletto, by the way, is the side-arm of choice for knights in the late Medieval Age. Nowadays people consider it more an assassin's weapon. (But I digress.)
...Wait. Are we even reading the same Wikipedia here? Land ownership = RICH. Only rich people owned land back then. Landowner in this day and age are still considered rich, just not super-rich. (The super-rich and multi-millionaire, though? LOTS of land in their name.) Why did you think that being a landowner doesn't mean he's rich?!
And while I see your argument, you presented tangential evidence, not direct evidence. We were discussing the virtues of armor vs. bladed weapons and you bring up .50 cal bullets and moats.
And going back to the first argument - You don't need to consistently armor every body part to be safe. You just need to protect the important parts, namely the body, the head, the arms and the legs. Joints are for mobility, so you only need to armor the outer parts and leave the gaps open. Under all that plate armor, though, even the poorest of knights still wear the hauberk underneath to ward off that lucky cut under the armpit. It'll hurt, oh, yes, but he ain't gonna be bleeding from a cut.
Even if a plate-armored warrior gets caught in a narrow corridor without a shield, he can still fend off a frontal attack just by parrying and skillful use of body armor (which is meant to deflect bladed weapons). He'd still die if he's knocked onto the ground, though to be honest that is the first thing you should do when faced with an armor-wearing enemy. That's where half-swording comes into play - by using the pommel of your sword as a makeshift mace, you knock the guy onto the ground in order to pin him down. Immobilized like that, you can take your gingerly time and stab him through the helmet eyeslit with your stiletto.
The stiletto, by the way, is the side-arm of choice for knights in the late Medieval Age. Nowadays people consider it more an assassin's weapon. (But I digress.)
That's what I had been arguing about all these while. The dude in the plate armour is, baring freak accidents, invulnerable to standard hacking, slashing and stabbing techniques with a bladed weapon. The vulnerable points of the plate armour are small targets, very difficult to hit and require more precise control of the blade to target. Anyone who is forced into a 1v1 encounter against somebody in plate armour, especially someone as well trained as a knight, without plate armour and a mace of his own is shite out of luck. The odds are so stacked up against the poor sucker he might need a heavy helping of divine assistance to get out of that one alive. He could maybe even out the odds if he knew how to half-sword and had enough of practice, but he is still in a very severe disadvantage in that situation.
AdventZero said: ...Wait. Are we even reading the same Wikipedia here? Land ownership = RICH. Only rich people owned land back then. Landowner in this day and age are still considered rich, just not super-rich. (The super-rich and multi-millionaire, though? LOTS of land in their name.) Why did you think that being a landowner doesn't mean he's rich?!
Because this is the same society/system that wrote entire stories about the money-grubbing merchant class who would sap the oh-so-pitiful noble class.
AdventZero said: And while I see your argument, you presented tangential evidence, not direct evidence. We were discussing the virtues of armor vs. bladed weapons and you bring up .50 cal bullets and moats.
No we weren't. You were arguing that plate armor can only be defeated under such extremely specific conditions such that it was effectively impossible to defeat. I pointed out that your specific conditions assumed that the attacker(s) were limited under extremely specific conditions, making the argument meaningless.
AdventZero said: And going back to the first argument - You don't need to consistently armor every body part to be safe. You just need to protect the important parts, namely the body, the head, the arms and the legs. Joints are for mobility, so you only need to armor the outer parts and leave the gaps open. Under all that plate armor, though, even the poorest of knights still wear the hauberk underneath to ward off that lucky cut under the armpit. It'll hurt, oh, yes, but he ain't gonna be bleeding from a cut.
You mean pauldrons and poleyns didn't exist?
Do you even know what you're talking about?
AdventZero said: Even if a plate-armored warrior gets caught in a narrow corridor without a shield, he can still fend off a frontal attack just by parrying and skillful use of body armor (which is meant to deflect bladed weapons). He'd still die if he's knocked onto the ground, though to be honest that is the first thing you should do when faced with an armor-wearing enemy. That's where half-swording comes into play - by using the pommel of your sword as a makeshift mace, you knock the guy onto the ground in order to pin him down. Immobilized like that, you can take your gingerly time and stab him through the helmet eyeslit with your stiletto.
Ah yes, the parry. The magical maneuver knights use to knockdown bolts in mid-flight. Do you believe that katana using samurais can cut bullets down in mid-flight as well?
Because this is the same society/system that wrote entire stories about the money-grubbing merchant class who would sap the oh-so-pitiful noble class.
No we weren't. You were arguing that plate armor can only be defeated under such extremely specific conditions such that it was effectively impossible to defeat. I pointed out that your specific conditions assumed that the attacker(s) were limited under extremely specific conditions, making the argument meaningless.
You mean pauldrons and poleyns didn't exist?
Do you even know what you're talking about?
Ah yes, the parry. The magical maneuver knights use to knockdown bolts in mid-flight. Do you believe that katana using samurais can cut bullets down in mid-flight as well?
1. During the Dark Ages, the Bourgeois class as we know it didn't exist and the guys with all the money also happens to own all the land (which is where his money comes from)! Check your history! Heck, even the merchants of the Renaissance age also own some land of their own!
2. Attackers are limited only to melee weapons and is in the medieval age! What, you want to bring machine guns into that situation? If the attacker wields a sword, faces a knight in plate armour, armed with a sword or an axe or a polearm of his own, his option will become very limited. What's he supposed to do, simply swing like a maniac hoping to score a lucky hit? He would be dead long before the knight even felt any kind of aching from all that flailing. If he wants to live, he either better learn to half-sword, happen to carry a mace on his person, or just turn around and hope he can run faster than the knight (and assuming he isn't in plate armour, he can conceivably outrun the knight).
If you have any better ideas on how this poor sod is going to survive a hostile encounter against a knight armed with a bladed weapon or a polearm, say it and we see if it's going to work.
3. Pauldrons protect the shoulders. The armpits are still vulnerable points! Poleyns do not cover the back of knees!
4. Parry against melee weapons, you fuckwit! What, you think you can swing faster than a speeding bullet? Any knight who knows that he has to deal with bowmen over the hill would bring a shield for protection, or just hang back a bit further some more and let the hundreds score pikemen soak up the damage and the siege weapons and bowmen of their own to soften the opposition before charging in!
Exactly what point are you making? Other than you hate to lose and are willing to go off-tangent and twist the facts to prove yourself superior?
Let's just stop here, Mincemaker. MMaestro probably doesn't know what he's doing and is just digging himself deeper while trying to dig himself out.
Considering the fact that you believe that a knight can "fend off a frontal attack just by parrying"; if I'm in a hole, I'm in a far better place than you.
Considering the fact that you believe that a knight can "fend off a frontal attack just by parrying"; if I'm in a hole, I'm in a far better place than you.
There you go, twisting words. Read the context. Enemy in front, wielding a melee weapon. A knight should at least be able to parry many of those attacks, and the attacks that he failed to intercept will be deflected by his plate armour, if the opponent is wielding a polearm or a bladed weapon. Frontal attack, in melee, by an infantry wielding a sword, an axe or any polearm!
Read the damned context! Do you have reading comprehension at all?
There you go, twisting words. Read the context. Enemy in front, wielding a melee weapon. A knight should at least be able to parry many of those attacks, and the attacks that he failed to intercept will be deflected by his plate armour, if the opponent is wielding a polearm or a bladed weapon. Frontal attack, in melee, by an infantry wielding a sword, an axe or any polearm!
Read the damned context! Do you have reading comprehension at all?
AdventZero said: Even if a plate-armored warrior gets caught in a narrow corridor without a shield, he can still fend off a frontal attack just by parrying and skillful use of body armor (which is meant to deflect bladed weapons).
AdventZero said: Even if a plate-armored warrior gets caught in a narrow corridor without a shield, he can still fend off a frontal attack just by parrying and skillful use of body armor (which is meant to deflect bladed weapons).
Like Mincemaker said, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Like Mincemaker said, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Mincemaker said:
There you go, twisting words. Read the context. Enemy in front, wielding a melee weapon. A knight should at least be able to parry many of those attacks, and the attacks that he failed to intercept will be deflected by his plate armour, if the opponent is wielding a polearm or a bladed weapon. Frontal attack, in melee, by an infantry wielding a sword, an axe or any polearm!
Read the damned context! Do you have reading comprehension at all?