Thevenin wrote:I think it depends on which era you're considering. The story of Agincourt holds that several knights (Including the Duke of York, who died this way) fell off their horses into the mud and wouldn't be able to get up, and drowned. But over the years, the heavy, cumbersome armor became lighter and more practical than just big thick metal plates, discounting tourney armor of course. I am not discounting the effectiveness of the plate armor of the day, but it was a little cumbersome.
False. Well made plate permitted nearly the full range of motion that one would have without it. If you've ever tried fighting, you'll learn very fast that armour which overly restricts or encumbers you makes you very easy to kill.
Militire wrote:I would also like to say something about armor. At their hights, both cultures had good styles of armor. For example ( As I' m French/ English Canadian and distantly related to knights of templar members and of the normal French knights, so I know more about them) wealthy, 15th century French knights had around 3.4 inch steel plate armor, ( for heavier preferances) iron mail, heavy leather vests( which makes the mail much more effective), and then, ordinary cloths. From my extremly limited knowledge of Japenese samuria armor (correct me please), it includes 1-2 inch steel armor, heavy studded leather, and something that involves pig intestine; while ninja armor is almost non-existant ( for the majority of cases) and Chinese warrior armor is slightly heavier than samuria, though not as widely found and not usualy well made. In popular culture, It usualy shows medieval armor as heavy, uncomferable, and inflexible, while Eastern armor is light and flexible, as well as almost impenetirble. I don't know about Eastern armor, But I know that well-made expensive armor fits the wearer like a glove, and there are some recordes of knights being able to cartwheel in heavy armor, as well as being almost impenitarble. So why does popular culture emphasise that Easternism is beter that Westernism, even at the West's forte: heavy armor.
I hope I have misunderstood your post. Are you really attempting to say that Japanese armour was based on an
inch of steel? Or that European plate harness was 3/4ths of an inch thick?
Have you ever tried to lift a sheet of steel of that size?
Avenio wrote:Yes, but most noblemen of the medieval era would scoff at fighting off of horseback, as it was (If you'll forgive the pun) beneath them. The elaborate plate armour the nobility of Europe wore had to be built to be comfortable for use on a horse and rigid in order to assist the wearer in using their lance. The consequence of this was that much of the classical plate armour we see in popular culture would be very cumbersome when down on the ground in a melee, thanks to the lack of visibility from the helmet and the inflexibility of the plates. During the period in which infantry began to develop into its own, it would be much more common for the pikemen and spearmen of the Medieval period to wear lighter lamellar or chainmail for just this purpose.
What?You are, I am afraid, entirely wrong. European plate harness was very suitable for use in fast melee fighting, including grappling techniques and other such maneuvers. This is shown by a myriad of sources -- examination of surviving harness, analysis of period fighting manuals, and reconstructions of period fighting, among other things.
You may be thinking of jousting armours, which are an entirely different kettle of fish.
Avenio wrote:I rather doubt the cartwheeling bit, unless the soldier in question was wearing something like plate mail instead, but the plate armour of Europe was meant to fit the wearer well, but not to impart a particular amount of flexibility, just comfort.
See above.
Avenio wrote:I probably know even less than you about Eastern armour, but I'll try to debate this as best I can. From what I can tell of Chinese military history, the Chinese military favoured the use of lamellar armour rather than the elaborate mail and plate armour of Europe. Lamellar was strong enough to take an arrow or a sword blow if partially deflected, and was much, much more flexible. In personal combat, this means that a soldier wearing Chinese-style lamellar would be much, much more maneuverable than a dismounted knight in plate mail, and this translates into better survivability. (The ability to dodge blows often means that the armour doesn't need to absorb as many shots and lowers the chance of a blow getting through)
I do not have the information to comment on Chinese armouring practices. However, your opinion on European armour is basically wrong. Furthermore, your conclusion is backwards -- your chance of surviving in plate harness is a good deal better, because they are much more protective and no more (indeed, often less) cumbersome than mail.
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:24 am