Archer armour

Users who are viewing this thread

Zadok13

Recruit
Just a thought, but drawing a bow requires quite a bit of movement, which wouldn't be very easy wearing plate armour...
 
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 just don't use a bow when wearing heavy armor because a knight that wore heavy armor for battle would wear nice leather clothing and use a bow only for hunting deer, or a spear for hunting boar. I think a quiver looks silly with armor like that anyway. No need for restrictions being built into the game just restrict yourself.
 
My black knight doesn't use bows, he uses Crossbows.

I believe that's realistic.

My mag-7 girl is only wearing templar armor, which I believe is realistic enough.
 
They can be fired from a horse, only can't be reloaded from a horse. Also, your ass is not permanently attached to a horse, nor do you have to use one at all.
 
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.

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. :razz:
In a well made suit, you'd be able to draw a little further than you might think.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Let's keep in mind that this isn't dungeons and dragons, and that's flat-out wrong.

I can't really *blame* you, since you probably haven't had any exposure to medieval history outside of the movies, and there's so many damned victorian mistakes out there that it would be amazing if it weren't so irratating.

Commanders were, as a rule, in nothing less than FULL plate, cap-a-pie. I say nothing less, because simple plate was just the start for a wealthy man -you engraved it, you inlayed it with gold or silver wire, you plated it with gold, you added beautiful ornaments like lion's heads or crusifixes. It was a symbol of their status, and it is NOT heavy. Rather, it *was* -if you put it all in a basket to pick up- but being worn you hardly notice it. (you notice it at the end of the day, especially if you're not used to it) Young men leap into their saddles wearing it, dance and do summersaults to show off how well they wear it. There's even an account of one lucky man -obviously a strong swimmer- falling off a bridge into a river and being able to swim to shore in full armor.

You never see anyone in full plate using a bow and arrow for one very simple reason: In western europe among the gentry, archery was considered cowardly. It was a weapon for the low-born, and had no purpose on the field where gentlemen and nobles fought. The English were different about that, eventually, as were the Spanish and Genoese, but it was always true for the French, Prussians, Bavarians and other Germans, Belgans, Occitans, Burgundians, Venetians, Milanese, Naopolitans, and everyone else.
In eastern europe that was different -thus, you see Magyar and Rus nobles depicted just as often with bows and arrows as they are with lances and swords.

But in this fictional (but not fantasy) setting, it's not necessary to stick to historical biases, is it? :wink:
 
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. :razz:
They make bows other than longbows? Why bother? :wink:
 
archery was considered cowardly.

And using a crossbow was even more cowardly. I believe a pope actually banned crossbow use once because of it's "unchivalrous" nature. With a little luck even an untrained crossbowman could kill a knight with years of training and experience. Which was of course "not done" :smile:

Also, drawing a bow mainly uses the back and shoulder muscles, not the biceps. A good archer will in fact do nothing more than pull his shoulder blades towards each other while pushing the bow away from him. I've been an archer for a long time myself :smile:
 
Now we are talking armors....( note that i agree fully with Destichado)

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).

Armour Research Society
 
"Milanese" armours had asymmetrical pauldrons as of 1420-25.
But they were designed for horseback fighting and shield-less fighting.

-> http://www.masterclass.it/storia/medioevo/armatura.jpg

This [probably composite] suit is an example of late XV cent. armour.
Notice the uneven pauldrons.


Also, armoured bowmen were sometimes portrayed in XV cent. [York/Lankaster] era art.
Some horse archers are portrayed in XIII cent. German? miniature art.

It is usually thought they were just "iconic", not really representative of real trappings.
It is possible Teutonic knights employed bows while on horseback; I won't track down their canon, so I can't say for sure.


I'd like to see lighter, horse-operated, crossbows.


[EDIT: rephrased first sentence.]
 
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.

Most longbowmen were trained from about 7yrs old + up to around 20 which was around the age they were put into service.

The draw resistance (commonly known as draw weight) is measured in lbs and the longbows are estimated at anything from 60lb (about 12000 years ago) to 180lb (Henry VIII + Mary Rose bows) so yes, they were damned heavy, especially since they were drawn to the ear/back of the jaw (I believe Destichado already mentioned that though ^_^) and longbowmen were pretty mishapen, probably more due to the fact that they were in training during puberty and even before then more than the fact they drew powerful longbows, since people today draw bows of that weight (granted, they don't actually shoot people hehe) and some (well one, named Mark Stretton) has succesfully drawn a bow of just over 200lb draw weight, which exceeds those found on the Mary Rose which were also the heaviest found in english history. It's a guiness world record too, so go him!

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. :wink:
 
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. :shock:

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. :wink:
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. :wink:
 
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. :shock:

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. :wink:
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. :wink:

Plenty of archers and crossbowmen in france before, during and after the 100 years war. They were just not quite as celebrated by posterity as the english bowmen.

Prestwich (in Medieval Warfare: the english experience) argues that the french were quite flexible in their battle tactics, considerably more so than the english, who tended to stick to their proven system. However, it took a while for them to develop a combination that turned the sad losses during the 14th and early 15th centuries into the armies that bootet the english out of france and bottle them up in Calais.
 
Back
Top Bottom