Best-dressed Warrior

Users who are viewing this thread

Bobtheheros said:
Plate armor's the ****, you peasants

Brigandine's always looked better, as far as I'm concerned.

2d170wk.jpg

That helmet's a massive faux pas though. No gorget or bevor -and- an octopus on top? Guy needs to sort his headgear.
 
The maille is definitely turning orange, yeah, HDR is being used, but the black spots on that armour just looks like devil's spit to me, maybe 'enhanced' by the HDR.
 
That makes armour weak.

Equipping a Knight with that kind of gear then would cost about £50. A good plate harness can cost thousands today. You should keep that stuff oilier than a 16-year-old McDonald's server.

Rusty gear is failure waiting to happen, if your armour goes to ****, you're either dead or you're a hell of a lot poorer. If someone lets their armour rust because they think it looks cooler then they're frankly just a ****ing moron.

BEAUCHAMP%20BLUE%2002_jpg.jpg
BEAUCHAMP%20BLUE%2004_jpg.jpg


Gear like that on a sunny day makes me so hard I could hammer nails.

I have basically no tolerance for rusty gear. There's no excuse, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Eктωρ said:
Muskets, just muskets.

Whelp,

DSCN0894.JPG
lj0fLMn.jpg
12426766334_f7880a974c_b.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isIgZ-D9oAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCFMFeZ0JvQ

Note; the shooting in the videos are in extreme close range, however the armor that is shot at is (probably)made of modern steel(pistol video) or made as a high quality reproduction of layered plate armor(musket video). Thus the historically accurate armors would have not dealt with it as good, however they would not have been shot at that proximity very often.

I definitely am not saying that I would accept a bet to stand in a plate armor reconstruction while getting shot at by a matchlock...however it was not as easy as most people think.

There was a common practice during the 15th and 16th century in Europe, called "Proofing" where the smith would prove the quality of his works in front of a potential buyer by shooting the armor with a firearm or bow.

Still, I am not claiming that it was safe to laugh at musketballs coming at you, however a condottiere, Bernardino Fortebraccio, was shot in the armor 12 times during the battle of Fornovo and he did not complain much after he got up and walked it off :mrgreen:


Ililsa said:
I have basically no tolerance for rusty gear. There's no excuse, as far as I'm concerned.

There is a rumor going on that certain armor parts and complete sets in museums were stripped of their protective layers(paint n' stuff) by decades of careful scrubbing by the museum staffs in order to achieve the "shiny knights armor" to get more visitors.


There are some pieces though, that still have their old original paint job;

blacksallet1490v2_s.jpg
gunwpFE.jpg
eMuseumPlus
salir01.jpg
2043225661_6ccdfb6477.jpg
d6df0082edb71bdd4d1f58df0d59014e.jpg
a82-5.jpg
- reconstruction
d205c4ae235c353a9784b069785fda44.jpg
DSCF1515.jpg
 
Whoa man, use the
Code:
 [IMG][/IMG]
function. Those images are tearing my browser a new *******.

Those painted plate armours combined with pink-painted castles would've been a funny sight. You never see that sort of thing in osprey much either; it's all grey walls with flawlessly shiny metal.
 
I fixed the oversized images.

jacobhinds said:
Those painted plate armours combined with pink-painted castles would've been a funny sight. You never see that sort of thing in osprey much either; it's all grey walls with flawlessly shiny metal.

Don't forget the fluffy hats;
fIIgrjL.jpg
xRxnRyO.jpg
...never forget the fluffy hats.
 
I suppose russeting could achieve the desired reddish hue while also protecting the steel or iron proper from oxidation. The top layer is bathed in a vinegar or urine to produce an oxide not otherwise occurring, and this layer protects the core of the piece from regular exposure to the elements. It still weakens the layer and a strong blow will shatter the rust and expose the naked iron below, but the piece can be stored for a long time with minimal maintenance. It wasn't really a medieval practice though.

I wish the inside surfaces of those shot plates could be photographed. I'd be interested to see if there was any spalling. It's possible for armour to stop a projectile, only to fragment itself on its inner surface and still injure its wearer.
 
Bluehawk said:
I wish the inside surfaces of those shot plates could be photographed. I'd be interested to see if there was any spalling. It's possible for armour to stop a projectile, only to fragment itself on its inner surface and still injure its wearer.

I do not believe that, since the plate sections were made of a single sheath, there would be any shrapnels flying through the other side.

Plate armor could hold its ground even during the wheellock and the beginning of the flintlock age.

In fact, Louis de Gaya, Traité des Armes published in Paris in 1678 says that the casque (helmet) and the front of the cuirass should be musket-proof, but the back of the cuirass and the limb armour need only be pistol-proof. His contemporary Charles II of England, however, passed a law saying that soldiers of the English militia only needed breastplates and helmet that were pistol-proof, not musket-proof. Cost was clearly a factor there.

That was the situation during the 17th/16th century, surely the firearms of the 15th century had an even harder job.
 
Allthough plate armor became fairly obsolete after the introduction of mass-produced rifles with actual iron sights.

But, they could still protect you from swords and bayonets if you managed to get into a melee.
 
PinCushion said:
Allthough plate armor became fairly obsolete after the introduction of mass-produced rifles with actual iron sights.

But, they could still protect you from swords and bayonets if you managed to get into a melee.

Iron sights? That's a fairly modern introduction.
 
It ain't that modern, I mean full lengths flintlocks and even older mechanisms would sometimes be produced with a small bead or blade front post. Rear sights took a little longer to come around, and apertures and telescopic sights were not too far behind. Definitely wouldn't call them modern.
 
Back
Top Bottom