Question about plate mail.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-02-25 02:20pm

For heavily armored knights, the favored weapons were the pike, halberd, flanged mace, flail, or warhammer. Other weapons developments seen in that era was two handed swords, which started to develop a mean point. I have such a blade, the templar sword, which incorporates a tapered blade to seek out the joints in the armor. Plate can't cover all possible angles of approach, and chain tends to fare poorly against a pointy object.

(and by the way, the sword itself only weights about 4.0 pounds. The rest is the included scabbard, and the packaging material).

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2006-02-25 03:45pm

Elheru Aran wrote:The samurai vs. knight thing has been done to death. Essentially, the knight has the advantage of better armour and better metallurgy, plus a more diverse field of experience in regard to combat training. The samurai, on the other hand, has fairly weak armour compared to the knight's, and his sword is optimized for cutting up lightly armoured opponents and would probably shatter when it struck a properly made European sword.

Didn't the majority of Samurai use Yari? And a large number also used bow, I believe. How would Yari stand up against plate armor, as compared to the lances/spears of the period?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-02-25 04:00pm

LadyTevar wrote:Just an FYI: Most of the ideas of the 'too heavy to move' came from the Jousting Armor and the standing displays of decorative armor found in many castles. The Jousting armor was heavier than War Armor because it was a 'game' and just as now it's bad form for someone to actually DIE playing a game.

The standing decorative armor often had their joints welded in order to stand properly by themselves. Some did away with important joints altogether.

yeah poor guy who accidentally broke his lance on king richard's jousting armour the fragment flew into rechard's helmet and entered his brain killing him. they executed the poor squire for accidentally killing someone in a game he was supposed to loose to the king....

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-02-25 04:19pm

You sure that's the right king? IIRC that happened to Henry II of France, not any of the Richards...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-02-25 04:43pm

your probably right my brain is inhairently fucked, I get the story correct but can't remember names for shit.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2006-02-25 10:14pm

SCRawl wrote:
XPViking wrote:As far as I know, the knights weren't exactly wimps either and are likely quite a bit stronger than the average person today. I'm thinking they are akin to modern day bodybuilders or other high performance athlete.
I doubt that even the cream of the crop living 400 years ago (or more) would be in the same class as a modern high-end athlete. Hell, a modern high-end athlete would outclass his counterpart of only 100 years ago, thanks to better diet and training methods.

I was aiming in relative terms, not necessarily saying that a knight is equal to a high end athlete. I can't find any information yet on what an average knight physical strength was. I'm not saying they were uber, but I'm quite sure that back then life was quite a bit more brutal than now and they would be more inured to pain, etc... than we are.

So, going back to the original post, I believe that a knight can pick himself up from the ground but during war could he do it fast enough? As well, if he fell awkwardly then he would be toast.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-02-25 10:39pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:your probably right my brain is inhairently fucked, I get the story correct but can't remember names for shit.

I think this is the case you're referring to. It was Henry IIof France, but he did survive long enough to absolve his opponent, Gabriel Montgomery, of guilt. But Montgomery was no squire either.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-02-26 12:54am

XPViking wrote:
SCRawl wrote:
XPViking wrote:As far as I know, the knights weren't exactly wimps either and are likely quite a bit stronger than the average person today. I'm thinking they are akin to modern day bodybuilders or other high performance athlete.
I doubt that even the cream of the crop living 400 years ago (or more) would be in the same class as a modern high-end athlete. Hell, a modern high-end athlete would outclass his counterpart of only 100 years ago, thanks to better diet and training methods.
I was aiming in relative terms, not necessarily saying that a knight is equal to a high end athlete. I can't find any information yet on what an average knight physical strength was. I'm not saying they were uber, but I'm quite sure that back then life was quite a bit more brutal than now and they would be more inured to pain, etc... than we are.

Oh, well, then yes, certainly, a knight would be worth two or three peasants in physical ability. Diet would have a lot to do with that.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-02-26 10:54am

In archeology I've read somewhere that there was a 5cm difference between peasants and nobles in the middle ages, just due to nutrition.

Look at the modern day japanese after the introduction of european cuisine. They have increased their average height by 10 cm over a period of 20 years.

Noble knights of the middleages wouldn't stand a chance vs todays athletes in strength or stamina. But what they could do was take a whole lot of whupping. I mean stick fighting practice started age 3. For nobles you'd get a training armor between 5-7 years old (depending on era/culture) which you would practice stick fighting in.
So you would have a relative pain threshold that is really high.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-02-26 07:23pm

As I said, you could safely compare the typical knight to a modern day soldier. He was well-fed, trained daily, and taught from a young age how to take down an opponent while taking little to no damage yourself.

In Fitness, you might compare them to the average health nut. They're not cut, they're not buff, they're simply in the best shape their diet and excercise allows.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2006-02-26 09:31pm

Elheru Aran wrote:The samurai vs. knight thing has been done to death. Essentially, the knight has the advantage of better armour and better metallurgy, plus a more diverse field of experience in regard to combat training.

Eh?

Hadn't heard this one.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-02-26 10:39pm

Edward Yee wrote:
Elheru Aran wrote:The samurai vs. knight thing has been done to death. Essentially, the knight has the advantage of better armour and better metallurgy, plus a more diverse field of experience in regard to combat training.
Eh? Hadn't heard this one.

Yep. Sword-- both one-handed and two-handed techniques, as well as with shield-- lance, axe, mace, spear, and quite often assorted polearm techniques as well as some training in archery, as well as basic handling of the mediaeval arsenal. Samurai had yari, naginta, katana, and bow; however, they were accustomed to facing a fairly small range of weapons as the peasant armies were equipped with spears and cheap swords for the most part. Knights, on the other hand, would face a wide range of weapons, and as such trained for that eventuality.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-27 04:46am

XPViking wrote:
SCRawl wrote:
XPViking wrote:As far as I know, the knights weren't exactly wimps either and are likely quite a bit stronger than the average person today. I'm thinking they are akin to modern day bodybuilders or other high performance athlete.
I doubt that even the cream of the crop living 400 years ago (or more) would be in the same class as a modern high-end athlete. Hell, a modern high-end athlete would outclass his counterpart of only 100 years ago, thanks to better diet and training methods.
I was aiming in relative terms, not necessarily saying that a knight is equal to a high end athlete. I can't find any information yet on what an average knight physical strength was. I'm not saying they were uber, but I'm quite sure that back then life was quite a bit more brutal than now and they would be more inured to pain, etc... than we are.

So, going back to the original post, I believe that a knight can pick himself up from the ground but during war could he do it fast enough? As well, if he fell awkwardly then he would be toast.

IIRC they disinterred one of Edward III's knights - Sir Henry Burgersh, I think. Big, strong, a hint of arthritis- he was old when he died - and with lobsided musculature reflecting right-arm use.

As stated higher up the thread. I am a mild mannered geek turned very very part-time knight. Even I can get off the ground in a trice, and come up fighting. Active knights practiced for this sort of thing. Put aside all the quaint, quasi-socialist fantasies of knights as lumbering toffy-nosed idiots. They were metal skinned killing machines.

Even out of his armour, a knight was worth a lot of peasants. Sir Robert Salle, out of hsi armour, mugged by 4000 peasants:

Some attempted to close with him; but with each stroke he gave, he cut off heads, arms, feet or legs. There were no so bold but were afraid; and sir Robert performed that day marvellous feats of arms. These wretches were upwards of forty thousand; they shot and flung at him such things, that had he been clothed in steel instead of being unarmed, he must have been overpowered: however, he killed twelve of them, besides many whom he wounded.

(http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/his ... /SALLE.HTM)

[/quote]