Fluffy The Hamster said:My black knight doesn't use bows, he uses Crossbows.
I believe that's realistic.
LB said:You certainly wouldn't be able to get a full draw. With all those layers (Plate, chainmail, padded cloth, linen tunic) your elbow simply wouldn't be able to bend far enough. You'd be awkward, uncomfortable, and largely ineffective.
I can't recall watching any movie where a character fired a bow dressed in full plate armor. I'm not sure about the possibility, also. Full plate armor limits movement not only because of it's absurd weight and higher strength requirements, but because it limited movements. Let us keep in mind it wasn't used that much by heroes and commanders. They favored breastplates and chainmail a lot more.
They make bows other than longbows? Why bother?Destichado said:Well, let's just say you wouldn't be able to draw a *longbow*. Not all bows were drawn all the way back to the base of your jaw.![]()
archery was considered cowardly.
Personally I do not believe that there was any one armour that was truly superior to another. Every type of armour has it's place in history, with it's matching arms and styles of warfare.
One disadvantage of Mail, that I would like to note, is it's weight. Well made armour of any sort should be shaped to the wearer's body, and distribute weight as evenly as possible. While this can be done with high-quality mail, it's still far from the near perfection of some articulated plate armour. This, combined with the fact that some tight mail patterns tend to trap a lot of body heat making wearing Mail for extended periods quite tiring.
The highly developed weight distribution that became possible with the era of Articulated Plate was simply amazing. A warrior clad in a suit of properly made Articulated Plate would have been able to do cartwheels in his armour. Each plate balanced perfectly to a part of his body. This effectively dispels the myth of knights in armour falling off their horses and not being able to stand up. Such stories must have developed from certain examples of Tournament Plate Armour. Tournament Plate was specially designed to take the incredible impacts of jousting, so that it was very, very heavy. Such armour would have never been worn outside of a tournament environment. Again, it is important to compare the armour to the opposing arms and warfare techniques of when it was used.
Plate armour
Probably the most recognised style of armour in the world, associated with the knights of Middle to Late Medieval Europe, all parts of the human body have been fitted with specialised steel pieces, typically worn over linen or woollen underclothes and attached to the body via leather straps and buckles, with mail (maille) protecting those areas that could not be fitted with plate (the backs of the knee for instance). Well known constituent parts of plate-armour include the helm, gauntlets, gorget or 'neckguard', breastplate, and greaves worn on the lower legs.
Typically, full-body plate armour was custom made for the individual. This was understandably a very time-consuming and expensive undertaking, costing as much as a family house or high-powered car in today’s money. As such, it was almost exclusively the luxury of the noble and landed classes, with soldiers of lower standing generally wearing cheaper armour (if at all) typically limited to a helm and a breastplate. Full plate armour made the wearer virtually impervious to sword blows as well as providing some protection against arrows, bludgeons and even early musket shot. Although sword edges could not penetrate the relatively thin (as little as 2 mm) plate, they could cause serious concussive damage via the impact. Also, although arrows shot from bows could often pierce early plate at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, toughened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by blunt weapons like maces or warhammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organ haemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike though the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers to attack the Knight's eyes or joints.
Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armours popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. An armoured Knight (trained since his teens in its wearing) could comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth originating from Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today’s armies, SAS patrols have been known to tab miles carrying equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg).
Cataphract said:Also the longbow was a weapon that needed years of practice to be able to use it properly, an englishman was REQUIRED to own his own bow in medieval times. They say the draw resistance was about 30-40kg's which is quite much for one arm using only back and bicep muscles. They even say the bodies of longbowmen were different than others, their bones were alot bigger on their right arm than on the left. Using bows like this with heavy armor is very suspectible.
Well, the French certainly thought so, didn't they? The English Gentry did too -they just liked winning a hell of a lot more than they minded fighting dirty.EDIT: Uh yeh, archery was so cowardly that archers were more highly paid than armsmen/footmen/men-at-arms/etc. and mounted archers even more so.![]()
Destichado said:Not if you want to drive a cloth-yard shaft through a man's breasplate, or punch through a horse and kill a man when it came out the other side. Longbows were frightening at close range.![]()
Well, the French certainly thought so, didn't they? The English Gentry did too -they just liked winning a hell of a lot more than they minded fighting dirty.EDIT: Uh yeh, archery was so cowardly that archers were more highly paid than armsmen/footmen/men-at-arms/etc. and mounted archers even more so.![]()
![]()