Plate armor cartwheels.
- Thread starter GreySaber
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Like GreySaber said, I wouldn't consider 2.5-3.5 lbs "heavy". The swords actually feel much lighter than that if properly balanced, and stopping a blade mid-swing is not a problem, even with my XIIa Albion Baron, which is both on the big and heavy side with its 3 lbs 11 oz. It's a bit heavy for one handed use, but two handed it handles beautifully.Buxton said:
Here you have James Williams cutting with a single hander. Doesn't look very heavy to me.
http://www.albion-swords.com/cutting-knight.htm
Sordid Sinister
Banned
Ah, I think the sword enthusiast community invented the term 'sword-shaped object' for those.
Falchions, langseaxes, machetes, meat-cleavers. Certainly not useless, but not in the same category as the standard sword; they're mass weapons.calandale said:
That is, assuming the fulcrum is out near the tip where it'll get good momentum. An SLO that simply has a fulcrum moved down the blade a little is QUITE awkward: it neither has the control of a well-balanced sword, not the impetus of a cleaver.
Plebian
Recruit
Amman de Stazia said:
Yup. Weight only a little to do with speed or mobility. The only reason a knight would not be able to stand is because of the lack of any joint at the waist and thighs. If you were knocked down, the (tiny) range of movement at the mid-section would not allow you to get your legs under you to stand up. This was actually intentional, as it supported a knight around the waist to keep him easily upright in the saddle without having to strain against the weight of the armor. The armor kind of...held itself up.
I beg your pardon, but this qualifies for a "huh?" The cuirass and greaves were not one single piece, which is what you are suggesting. There was no trouble for a knight to bend forward, turn from side to side, move in any which direction he wanted. Plate was actually less restrictive of mobility than maille was, precicely because of all the joints. Weight was evenly distributed, so there was no need for the armour to "hold itself up". The sort of armour you are describing would impose ridiculous limitations on mobility, which is of absolute importance in a fight.Plebian said:
The Pope
Sergeant Knight
Some tournament armor was pretty restrictive, I'd say that's where the confusion comes from. I've seen suits with one pauldron and the helmet both fixed in place, and I can imagine having trouble getting up in that gear. I can't, however, imagine going to a battle wearing it.
Aqtai
Sergeant Knight at Arms
calandale said:
In that case I would suggest doing a bit more reading. When Agincourt was fought in 1415, full plate armour had only been around for a couple of decades, furthermore ALL the English men-at-arms (i.e. 'knights') and most of the French men-at-arms actually fought on FOOT!
What killed the French men-at-arms at Agincourt was bad tactics and overconfidence as well as the fact that Henry V was a superior commander. Full plate armour continued to be used right through the 15th and 16th century. Furthermore people forget that Agincourt was one of the LAST great English victories, thereafter the English lost more battles than they won: the battle of Bauge, the Siege of Orleans, the battle of Formigny, the Battle of Castillon.
What killed off full plate armour was a lethal combination of pikemen and arquebusiers at the battle of Pavia in 1525, and even then full plate was used until the end of the 16th century.
calandale said:
Well yeah, but then almost naked people can have problems standing up in mud ....
