Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
yeaaaaaa, I'm still gonna go with an armor instead of an arrow through my chest.
Also, could be a good work out. If you survive long enough, your gonna be a beast of a man.
Also, could be a good work out. If you survive long enough, your gonna be a beast of a man.
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.
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.