daredevi1的最近内容

Achul 说:

Do you guys raid villages? I never raid villages...feels a bit lame.

点击展开...

sdg 说:

daredevi1 说:

my point is to ridicule the notion that plate was standard for medieval armies,for such as infantry,basically a common soldier,but mostly gimmick made for lords,and nobles to protect them against stray arrow or etc(which it was all about),just as bomb squad armor offers best protection today,but soldiers dont wear it,its gimmick to protect bomb squad guy from minor explosions and shrapnel.

As this subject went on lots of "smart"guys like ninja started to state lamelar or partial plated armor for full plate,and i never said those weren't used or that are ineffective,i was talking about this:

http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/A000019_L.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/cruises/1/0/v/y/1/london030.jpg

点击展开...

I agree with you but partly.

I agree with you that full plate armor was hardly available to the regular foot soldier. Many were farmhands who were forced to join to escape the wrath of their feudal lord and were poorly armed, some with just farm tools. Quite like the recruits protrayed in M&B. Some were better armed and armored, but usually not, if not never, in full plate armor.

Full plate armor (suit), though restrictive due to cost, were highly effective pieces for protection against medieval weaponary. They were so effective that Knights could forgo the use of shields on horseback altogether which could be considered redundant, being made mostly of wood and leather. Some heavy cavalry of the 14th to 16th century were dressed in full plate armor and highly feared and effective force on the battlefield.

However, by the 16th century, the 'pike and shot' brigades had also come up and they were effectively destroying the reputation and dominance of cavalry charges in battlefields in the 16th century. Though the full plate armor could protect against swords, axes and arrows, they were no match for the inaccurate but lethal barrages from arquebuses (early medieval muskets). This contributed to the fall of the full plate armored heavy cavalry as a far less expensive bunch of peasants armed with wooden pikes and arquebuses, and under able leadership, took the battle honors.

So the full plate armor suit trancesanded to become a decorative battlefield fashion statement, worn by the rich nobility, to show their social standing and prestige. The armies post 16th century, started to become more firearms oriented, ensuring the dominance of lightly armored and mobile troops.

So, the full plate armor was not decoration until the advent of firearms.

Though full plate armor was phased out, lighter cavalry armor would remain on the battlefield uptil the 19th century.

点击展开...

sdg 说:

The knights and Lord hardly marched on foot but had several horses, which they changed periodically. Also during marches, they usually did not wear these heavy armours. These were put on just before the battle or when scouts reported enemy war parties nearby. (That is why a successful tactic used by defensive armies was to stalk invading armies from a distance. This forced them to stay on alert and usually travel in their battle armors, causing exhaustion. ) Moreover, fresh battle ready horses, were provided while the tired horses of the Lords/Knights rested in the camps. Knights, were a social high class and were supposed to own fiefs and provide for all these armaments. It was basically because of these equipment and training that they were considered assets in battle and ranked far high up in the military heirarchy.

Lastly, the Knights in the medieval period were expected to be large and strong, capable of carrying these weights and fight with huge weapons. Any visit to a museum of medieval knight's equipments can brighten us to the fact that the weapons usually fielded in battle are hardly 'light' or user friendly. Unbeliveable as it is to us today, huge blades and weapons were weilded in battle in those days. Guess the physical power and strength required ensured that Knights were such an exclusive class.

Lastly, comparing medieval warfare with modern warfare and their requirements may not do justice.

点击展开...

Night Ninja 说:

snip.... bunch of imbecilic statements to feed his ego,as no real arguments can be provided

点击展开...

Night Ninja 说:

You're a complete and utter imbecile. I'm sorry I couldn't break it to you gently, but there's no other way to put it.

1) Knights don't march in plate. They'd get into their armour shortly before a battle, but they wouldn't be slogging along roads while armoured. That is a recipe for exhaustion.

2) These people are the elite of their era. Nobody here is complaining about how professional fighters take multiple hits that would floor regular people twenty times over, so why are you imposing your own ridiculous and arbitrary physical limitations on knights?

In short, you need to do your homework and stop spouting nonsense. Plate armour offered excellent protection, and professional warriors deemed the slight loss in mobility and combat endurance to be a worthwhile tradeoff. There's very few ways to reliably incapacitate a fully-armoured knight.

Oh, and the video you posted? Utter nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGcYGwqb3So

Just take a look at the 'plate' they used. It bears a greater similarity to foil than to extant plate.

点击展开...

Merlkir 说:

you're simply so wrong it's almost funny. The styles of warfare you're comparing are NOTHING alike and plate armour certainly wasn't a metal casket or a gimmick.

点击展开...

Lucadena 说:

I understand your point and agree. If force field would be' removed then arrows would have to' be' set as they really were: useless against armors.
In medieval warfare arrows were a danger only against unarmored peons, because even a light armor (padded or leather) was quite effective against em. Not to' mention that anything like mail was untouchavle by arrows.
I am not expert about medieval warfare but this is what i know.
I feeling archers balanced as they Are now, sometimes even owerpowered anyway.

点击展开...