Question about plate mail.

Tiriol · Post by **Tiriol** » 2006-02-22 08:38am

I discussed the matter of knights and other medieval warfare with my friend some time ago and one thing stuck in my mind: while I know that the full-plate mail armour was not as cumbersome (not nearly as much) as the early media portrayal would suggest and that it didn't limit its wielder's movements much, there was one thing I couldn't answer.

What would happen if someone who was equipped with a full-plate mail would fall on his back? Could he get up and continue to fight, or would he require assistance to get up? Obviously falling from a horse's back in combat might cause some serious concussions, but was a knight like some heavy turtle, unable to get back on his feet on his own strength?

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-02-22 08:55am

Tiriol wrote:What would happen if someone who was equipped with a full-plate mail would fall on his back? Could he get up and continue to fight, or would he require assistance to get up? Obviously falling from a horse's back in combat might cause some serious concussions, but was a knight like some heavy turtle, unable to get back on his feet on his own strength?

Short answer: no. A knight wearing full plate armour was fully capable of standing up from the prone position, assuming he still had use of his arms and legs.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-22 09:18am

Last time I fell on my back, I rolled over, twatted somebody with my longsword and launched myself to my feet - and I (1) only wear the stuff in earnest about 4 times a year, and (2) was constrained by safety considerations, e.g. couldn't just throw myself at somebody for fear of squashing them.

BTW PLEASE DON'T CALL PLATE ARMOUR "PLATE MAIL". That's a roleplaying term, with no place in a proper discussion of the topic.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-02-22 10:00am

Some math:

My torso has about 100cm average circumference and about 70 cm height.
Plates for other bodyparts:

Arms 70x35 each (loose fit, for creating reasonable masses) ->

Legs 80x50 each (loose, for having "shoes"

Makes ~ 200 dm² of plate material... lets assume it has average 2mm thickness -> 0,02 dm thickness

Makes a 4 dm³ of iron at about 8kg/dm3 -> 28 kg total weigth.

Nothing to pin you down, since it is spreaded over your body. In fact, I am a rather weak person, but I can manage to stand up while carrying my GF, who has about double weight.

What is the weight of full marines gear (Backpack and all the stuff)?

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2006-02-22 10:01am

Bullshit! 32 kilogramms - silly me.

To restore my GF's honor, she weights only 54 kg...

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-22 10:28am

LOL! I've never seen anybody calculate it that way. You're certainly in the ballpark. I'll try to post the examples in Claude Blair when I have time.

I'm afraid your girlfriend would probably be of limited utility as body armour....

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-02-22 11:14am

I think that the myth of the turtle-backed knight comes more from a perceived lack of mobility, rather than excessive weight. Of course, for a properly fitted suit of full plate armour, mobility isn't a problem at all; it is merely a common misconception.

Zornhau · Post by **Zornhau** » 2006-02-22 11:19am

It's true that you wouldn't want to break dance in post 1450 jousting armour. All the extra protection adds weight and buggers mobility.

Also, armour is HOT and not something you can just shrug off when you're exhausted and dehydrated, especially if you're already under the weather. I experienced that last year at Tewkesbury. Had I fallen over in the walk back to camp, I would have been utterly helpless. Even so, I managed 45 minutes of battle under a hot sun.

But really, the armour as hinderance thing is one of those quaint cyrpto-socialist myths, along with the Miraculous Power of the Longbow in the hands of the Common Man. Knights wore plate because it worked.

Tiriol · Post by **Tiriol** » 2006-02-22 12:27pm

Zornhau wrote:Also, armour is HOT and not something you can just shrug off when you're exhausted and dehydrated, especially if you're already under the weather. I experienced that last year at Tewkesbury. Had I fallen over in the walk back to camp, I would have been utterly helpless. Even so, I managed 45 minutes of battle under a hot sun.

But really, the armour as hinderance thing is one of those quaint cyrpto-socialist myths, along with the Miraculous Power of the Longbow in the hands of the Common Man. Knights wore plate because it worked.

It's plate armour, all right. I'll keep that in mind in future events.

I actually got the whole question after reading an Eyewitness: Knight book (basically a children's book) after I had a moment of interest in knightly stuff and medieval warfare and swordsmanship. I had always thought it to be strange if the knights would wear armour so cumbersome that they had to be lifted on their horses and that they couldn't get back on their feet if prone. The book dispelled those illusions to my great satisfaction (I do have hard time convincing my friends about it, though) but I had to make sure about that prone thing.

And yes, the book did note that the main drawback to the full plate armour was the factor of heat. And I can imagine why...

Curiously, this whole knight/middle ages thing of mine started when I got bored with the total samurai wanking I have often heard around me when compared to an European knight. Especially when the katana appears to be a slashing weapon and I can't imagine it doing much of anything to a full plate armour unless the samurai gets a lucky shot.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-02-22 12:47pm

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.

Tiriol · Post by **Tiriol** » 2006-02-22 12:56pm

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.

... You wouldn't believe how much I've argued with people about that.

I have some very bad memories about people who refuse to believe that a samurai would, in fact, be in the trouble of his life if he encountered an angry European knight.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-02-22 02:17pm

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.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-22 05:56pm

Tiriol wrote:... You wouldn't believe how much I've argued with people about that. I have some very bad memories about people who refuse to believe that a samurai would, in fact, be in the trouble of his life if he encountered an angry European knight.

Are your friends Christian? You can totally tell them that God would be on the knight's side.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-02-22 07:48pm

I've been thrown by a horse before and I couldn't get up for several minutes. I wasn't wearing any armor, though. Something about landing flat on your back just knocks the air out of your lungs. It hurts like hell, too. The horse I was riding was barely trotting and I only fell 5 feet at the most.

Given that:

(a) knights and any other mounted troops, no matter how skilled are frequently thrown in combat (or get the horse killed under them) and

(b) being stunned for just a few seconds can mean certain death in combat...

... I'm sure many a knight met an untimely end when knocked off his horse. But it had fuckall to do with wearing armor.

Neko_Oni · Post by **Neko_Oni** » 2006-02-23 05:41am

Tiriol wrote:... You wouldn't believe how much I've argued with people about that. Smile I have some very bad memories about people who refuse to believe that a samurai would, in fact, be in the trouble of his life if he encountered an angry European knight.

What is the weapon of choice for dealing with plate armoured warriors? (I'm sure this has been asked a million times, oh well) Bludgeoning weapons? Maybe the only chance a Samurai would have against a knight would be if the Samurai ditched honour and used a tetsubo.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2006-02-23 05:57am

IIRC, blunt trauma weapons, really pointy really fast moving things that go right through the armor (read crosbows/early guns) or pointy things to get between the joints were all high on the list of things to kill knights with.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2006-02-24 08:59pm

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.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2006-02-24 09:13pm

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.

They were better fed than the average peasant. They trained often in the arts of warfare, often from the time they were old enough to swing a sword. Compare them to the average military soldier of today, and you'll have it about right.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2006-02-24 09:16pm

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.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-02-25 03:10am

Neko_Oni wrote:What is the weapon of choice for dealing with plate armoured warriors? (I'm sure this has been asked a million times, oh well) Bludgeoning weapons? Maybe the only chance a Samurai would have against a knight would be if the Samurai ditched honour and used a tetsubo.

Flanged maces, flails, pikes, war picks, and some axes, as far as I can tell, were the best. Basically, anything that either compresses the entire weight of the weapon and force of the swing into a single piercing or smashing point, or anything that channels a charging, mounted knight's momentum onto said point.

Darth Cronos the Proud · Post by **Darth Cronos the Proud** » 2006-02-25 03:43am

Neko_Oni wrote:What is the weapon of choice for dealing with plate armoured warriors? (I'm sure this has been asked a million times, oh well) Bludgeoning weapons? Maybe the only chance a Samurai would have against a knight would be if the Samurai ditched honour and used a tetsubo.

The The Hundred Years War (especially the Battle of Agincourt) showed that at ranges the best weapon against a person wearing Plate Armour was the Longbow. Lines of English Longbowmen were able to decimate lines of charging mounted and dismounted French Knights. When confronted with close-quarters battles, you're best friend against a Plate Armour wearing opponent is, as Oni states, a swinging weapon with it's center of gravity focused at the blade/business end (mace, hatchet, axe, etc.).

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-02-25 04:05am

Longbows where not weapons of the Common Man. Longbows required the person using them be trained with them from early childhood.

In contrast, a normal bow or crossbow you need minium training to use. Measured in months rather than significant fractions of decades.

Darth Cronos the Proud · Post by **Darth Cronos the Proud** » 2006-02-25 04:26am

ggs wrote:Longbows where not weapons of the Common Man. Longbows required the person using them be trained with them from early childhood.

In contrast, a normal bow or crossbow you need minium training to use. Measured in months rather than significant fractions of decades.

Granted, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that at ranges it is the best (read: most effective) weapon at ranges for dealing with an enemy wearing plate armour.

Now if someone asked what the best ranged Medieval weapon that the average person could use was, I'd have to say that the crossbow (provided the bolt had a steel bodkin tip) would be the best choice.

Shortie · Post by **Shortie** » 2006-02-25 07:55am

Darth Cronos the Proud wrote:
Neko_Oni wrote:What is the weapon of choice for dealing with plate armoured warriors? (I'm sure this has been asked a million times, oh well) Bludgeoning weapons? Maybe the only chance a Samurai would have against a knight would be if the Samurai ditched honour and used a tetsubo.
The The Hundred Years War (especially the Battle of Agincourt) showed that at ranges the best weapon against a person wearing Plate Armour was the Longbow. Lines of English Longbowmen were able to decimate lines of charging mounted and dismounted French Knights. When confronted with close-quarters battles, you're best friend against a Plate Armour wearing opponent is, as Oni states, a swinging weapon with it's center of gravity focused at the blade/business end (mace, hatchet, axe, etc.).

Nah, what they really showed was that combined arms beats one-trick ponies. The longbows slowed them down and disrupted them, the dismounted men at arms stopped them cold, and the cavalry ran them down (but not until the rest was done). Longbows were very good at their part of it, but they couldn't have done it alone. Likewise the exact weapons in melee weren't that important, the discipline was what mattered.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-02-25 09:00am

Mud, a congested battlefield and British daggers probably did more damage that day than the longbows.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Question about plate mail.

Question about plate mail.

Re: Question about plate mail.