Common sense would say it is...
And they already knew this. Just had some cash to waste, it seems.
And they already knew this. Just had some cash to waste, it seems.
Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It "is" obvious. But you also have to remember that for some reason people believe being in a full plate armor is "realistically" safer in most RPG's. When in truth, the BEST bet is to wear extremely durable leather over some chainmail. Leather for arrows, chain mail for sword strikes. Which is why the armor in The Witcher makes tremendous sense compared to trying to do all he does in a full plate mail.
I hate to break it to you guys but...we kind of already knew that. The fact that metal is heavy is as given a statement as the ocean is wet.
Mail armor, while more flexible, is not lighter or better distributed then plate armor. Leather gambesons are not particularly light either. The Witcher would be better off with a breastplate and a helmet, honestly. It would offer better protection and be lighter.Negatempest said:
I thought it would have been fairly obvious that yes plate armour was heavier than being unarmoured.
That said though you do have to consider the following factors
1, training- Knights would have been used to the load after a lifetime of practice and training.
2, they rode horses- unlike in the scientific test a knight did not run everywhere. He rode a destrier or a courser. A large, powerful horse again, trained and used to carrying a man in armour.
So i don't think its as cut and dry as saying- plate armour was very heavy, knights got tired really quickly.
That said though you do have to consider the following factors
1, training- Knights would have been used to the load after a lifetime of practice and training.
2, they rode horses- unlike in the scientific test a knight did not run everywhere. He rode a destrier or a courser. A large, powerful horse again, trained and used to carrying a man in armour.
So i don't think its as cut and dry as saying- plate armour was very heavy, knights got tired really quickly.
Plate armor was worn by knights obviously, everyone's with me on that page. But knights were mounted soldiers. They didn't walk anywhere they were able to ride, and did most of their fighting with a lance. Only an unhorsed knight walked or indeed even pulled out a sword.
In theory, chainmail has been known more as a lighter compared to plate mail. But most importantly it is flexible and less awkward to roll around in. You "could" do the same with chest plate but would usually cover the front and half the sides exposed slightly. Though this depends on the make of the mail and the make of the leather.Oroboros said:
The only problem with this study is knights were professional soldiers and generally in extremely good physical shape. They were not what we would consider of civilian physique. In all likelihood the knights would be in similar shape as marines, as their constant martial training would have kept them in prime form what with war being a constant in those days.
Additionally, knights were primarily cavaliers, and rarely engaged in foot combat, a popular misconception made more common by Hollywood films like Excalibur.
The Battle of Agincourt was a tactical blunder on the part of the French. The Henry V forced the engagement on terrain he chose, established firing positions for his archers who were better armed than the French counterparts on better terrain for them to fire from (dense woods and hills), not to mention positioning his infantry in a location that would force the French to bottleneck. So after the French cavalry charge failed to flank the archers, as well as being poorly organized and not at full force, the French cavalry ended up being dismounted from their horses by the English longbows (dead horses). After the failed cavalry charge the French then advanced with about 8000 arms-men on foot. Forcing 8000 arms-men to walk through 300 yards of mud would naturally tire them out, especially when they were under a constant barrage from the English archers. Of course the knights and arms-men were not the total of the French forces, who had closer to forty thousand total, with 10k armored soldiers, and the other 30k made up of light infantry and archers vs the English's total of about 9k including all arms-men, infantry, and archers.
So Agincourt was not simply won because of the rain and the weight of plate armor, but of a more traditional sequence of circumstances and tactics which resulted in favorable conditions for the English.
Additionally, knights were primarily cavaliers, and rarely engaged in foot combat, a popular misconception made more common by Hollywood films like Excalibur.
The Battle of Agincourt was a tactical blunder on the part of the French. The Henry V forced the engagement on terrain he chose, established firing positions for his archers who were better armed than the French counterparts on better terrain for them to fire from (dense woods and hills), not to mention positioning his infantry in a location that would force the French to bottleneck. So after the French cavalry charge failed to flank the archers, as well as being poorly organized and not at full force, the French cavalry ended up being dismounted from their horses by the English longbows (dead horses). After the failed cavalry charge the French then advanced with about 8000 arms-men on foot. Forcing 8000 arms-men to walk through 300 yards of mud would naturally tire them out, especially when they were under a constant barrage from the English archers. Of course the knights and arms-men were not the total of the French forces, who had closer to forty thousand total, with 10k armored soldiers, and the other 30k made up of light infantry and archers vs the English's total of about 9k including all arms-men, infantry, and archers.
So Agincourt was not simply won because of the rain and the weight of plate armor, but of a more traditional sequence of circumstances and tactics which resulted in favorable conditions for the English.
Also in other news: 1+1=2. More on this after the weather.
...Seriously, we needed scientists to tell us that wearing incredibly heavy metallic armor and running around will tire you out more quickly then if you were wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Must be a slow day at the labs lately.
...Seriously, we needed scientists to tell us that wearing incredibly heavy metallic armor and running around will tire you out more quickly then if you were wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Must be a slow day at the labs lately.
Well, depends what you mean by "mail armour". Quite alot of room for variety there, and then there's the question of whether you restrict the armour to the most vulnerable places.Oroboros said:
Also, of course, depends what you are being attacked by (and what weapons/shield you have).
Usually breastplates come with a back section to complement the front. All of the sets of mail I have handled were noticeably heavier then a breastplate, and while a breastplate may cover less then a hauberk, lets be honest, hat the witcher wears is not particularly protective to begin with, defense something like that grants is going to be less then that provided by a hauberk or breastplate, and the benefit to mobility compare to a hauberk or breastplate is negligible.Negatempest said:
i dont think anyone was dying to know the precise difference in energy it takes to run in clothing compared to a suit of metal; as you have so pointlessly proven, running in armor is harder.
also, knights rode horses into battle, and a fully armored knight is like a paperweight to a warhorse; testing how tiring it is to run in platemail is like testing the elasticity of a rock; platemail was never meant to run in, just as rocks are generally not used for things that require bending them.
also, knights rode horses into battle, and a fully armored knight is like a paperweight to a warhorse; testing how tiring it is to run in platemail is like testing the elasticity of a rock; platemail was never meant to run in, just as rocks are generally not used for things that require bending them.
I wonder if they also took the physical condition of those who wore armour into account and its effect.
Knights were upper class and would of course have the benefits of this - good food and training, something your average peasant would not have been entitled to.
They also would have trained for years wearing these suits of armor, from a young age, thus they would have grown up adapting to its weight and restrictions, making an incredible difference to how they could fight with it - and remember, the difference that matters is not how well they can move wearing or not wearing it, it's the difference between how well they can move wearing it fighting against someone who is not.
I would imagine training daily in a heavy suit of armour would make you VERY strong, and more importantly, your body would adapt to it, strengthening the muscles needed to support it.
Finally you need to factor in the skill of the warriors on either side - like I said before, the ones in armour are knights and had the benefits of being such. And or course it would depend who you are fighting.. different cultures fought differently and armour may have helped or hindered against their tactics.
My point being, you can't judge the effectiveness of something like armour in the manner they have done, because there are just so many more factors you would need to consider.
Knights were upper class and would of course have the benefits of this - good food and training, something your average peasant would not have been entitled to.
They also would have trained for years wearing these suits of armor, from a young age, thus they would have grown up adapting to its weight and restrictions, making an incredible difference to how they could fight with it - and remember, the difference that matters is not how well they can move wearing or not wearing it, it's the difference between how well they can move wearing it fighting against someone who is not.
I would imagine training daily in a heavy suit of armour would make you VERY strong, and more importantly, your body would adapt to it, strengthening the muscles needed to support it.
Finally you need to factor in the skill of the warriors on either side - like I said before, the ones in armour are knights and had the benefits of being such. And or course it would depend who you are fighting.. different cultures fought differently and armour may have helped or hindered against their tactics.
My point being, you can't judge the effectiveness of something like armour in the manner they have done, because there are just so many more factors you would need to consider.