Heavy armor myths

[Uther]

First misconception a lot of people seem to have is that it made it's wearer EXTREMELY clumsy and barely mobile on foot.....Of course, it's not the case.
Modern soldier wears equipment that is at least as heavy as medieval knights, if not more.
Here's a video showing what an average joe who didn't train his whole life can do in plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

Second myth is that archer's arrows could penetrate knight's armor enough to kill him. This video shows that it's very unlikely, unless the arrow was shot in very vulnerable part such as eye opening in the helmet. This is a video showing the test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Now a crossbow - that's different.

PS: i think it's clear what conclusions you should come to
Archers = overpowered in M&B

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Yeah. Arrows are probably too accurate as well, and don't quite work properly against armour. However, they probably also do too little damage once they penetrate.

 

[Skorpion]

unless many archers are just letting a rain of arrows about...

Which is why english longbowmen tended to do just that. Wall of wood with notches in.

 

[stygN]

Well... Today a normal armygrunt needs only to barely move his finger to kill a guy, 500 years ago they needed to swing a heavy (remember, the longer the weapon is, the heavier it is to operate, newtons law of something that I don't remember whats called. Leverage..??) weapon! So, ask that acrobat if he could do that stuff after swinging his morningstar, greatsword, spear, whatever for hours upon hours on the battlefield? That's not so easy... Ever think that the walked a bit slow to preserve energy? To fight medieval style are really, really hard, and if you have a full plate armor that are not the most expensive and lightweight you can find, then you will get tired, and walk slow and clumsy.

But that a guy that are not tired could do that in a platemail, sure, I don't doubt it. But not after a really hard battle.

EDIT: Forgot a single word that sort of made a big difference : P All fine now.

 

[Archonsod]

Oh ****, not the arrow / plate penetration argument again

 

[Fudgynumnums]

First misconception a lot of people seem to have is that it made it's wearer EXTREMELY clumsy and barely mobile on foot.....Of course, it's not the case.
Modern soldier wears equipment that is at least as heavy as medieval knights, if not more.

No, medieval plate armor was heavier than the modern soldiers gear. Medieval plate armor just felt lighter as the weight was distributed over the entire body, where as a modern soldier will carry most of the weight on his back.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

This webpage would disagree with you:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/02/19/weight-of-combat-gear-taking-its-toll-on-troops/

Though I'm not sure whether it's exaggerating or not.

 

[PsykoOps]

Omg here we go again...
1) You try it then. Put on a suit of armor and go for a little melee. You'll soon find out that even with pacing yourself you wont last for long. Even an athletic man will have difficulty fighting for more than few minutes at a time. You can put all the science and stuff behind it, but anyone who has tried that will tell you different.
2) Depends on the armor, chain mail is weak against bodking heads. Early armor is very weak also, unless used in such a great amount that it would be too heavy. Advances in steel were the big killer of longbows and the first ones to use proper steel on themselves and horses were the lombard cavalry. Horses were the weakest because low quality steel was too heavy to be used on them. That all changed in time. They did ram trought the longbowmen, but there were other advantages also.

Remember as time passed other stuff advanced but longbows pretty much stayd the same 

 

[Uther]

That's why heavy infantrymen and knights spent years training specifically to be able to endure combat in plate armor.

Also, another excerpt on armor's weight from wikipedia:

"Plate armour could have consisted of a helmet, a gorget (or bevor), pauldrons (or spaulders), couters, vambraces, gauntlets, a cuirass (back and breastplate) with a fauld, tassets and a culet, a mail skirt, cuisses, poleyns, greaves, and sabatons. While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel.[2] This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier (usually 25 to 35 kg), and the weight is more evenly distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour, though it is difficult. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer, as witnessed in re-enactment combat. The notion that it was necessary to lift a fully armed knight onto his horse with the help of pulleys is a myth originating in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

Compare that to weight of modern soldier's equipment in Swadius's post.

 

[Kasimir]

Well... Today a normal armygrunt needs only to barely move his finger to kill a guy, 500 years ago they needed to swing a heavy (remember, the longer the weapon is, the heavier it is to operate, newtons law of something that I don't remember whats called. Leverage..??) weapon! So, ask that acrobat if he could do that stuff after swinging his morningstar, greatsword, spear, whatever for hours upon hours on the battlefield? That's not so easy... Ever think that the walked a bit slow to preserve energy? To fight medieval style are really, really hard, and if you have a full plate armor that are not the most expensive and lightweight you can find, then you will get tired, and walk slow and clumsy.

But that a guy that are not tired could do that in a platemail, sure, I don't doubt it. But not after a really hard battle.

EDIT: Forgot a single word that sort of made a big difference : P All fine now.

Anyone will be tired after swinging a weapon for hours upon hours in combat. You are right that preserving energy was a factor in armoured fighting - swordsmanship manuals include sections on harnisfechten which specifically mention keeping your footwork conservative in armour. Generally fully professional troops in armour are the guys with better stamina than most, which helps mitigate the fatigue from being in armour.

Personally I believe there is a reason for the myth about knights being unable to climb on horseback after being knocked off their horse... most notably, they have just been knocked off their horse. People get injured falling off horses, people get injured being hit hard enough to knock them off horses, that sort of thing.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Plus, once a shiny knight falls off his horse, he is either pulled off by a number of people, if not, he will soon be held down by a good number of people soon after.
Besides, any historian with no background in trained martial arts is going to think that plate armor is heavy when he'she saw the total weight of it all, not having the experience to take into account other factors.

 

[Ludial]

First misconception a lot of people seem to have is that it made it's wearer EXTREMELY clumsy and barely mobile on foot.....Of course, it's not the case.
Modern soldier wears equipment that is at least as heavy as medieval knights, if not more.
Here's a video showing what an average joe who didn't train his whole life can do in plate armor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

Second myth is that archer's arrows could penetrate knight's armor enough to kill him. This video shows that it's very unlikely, unless the arrow was shot in very vulnerable part such as eye opening in the helmet. This is a video showing the test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk

Now a crossbow - that's different.

PS: i think it's clear what conclusions you should come to
Archers = overpowered in M&B

1. that guy wasn`t an average joe, but a SCA veteran; he personally showed me the vid once.
2. in that vid it`s clearly seen that the arrow can penetrate the plate, albeit from a shorter distance. And the arrowhead was not a long bodkin(which is the one represented in M&B, and is quite sharper than the one used in the vid)

next time, use better references. if you actually put a link for another vid from the series, people would know that when facing mounted knights, the archers would know to aim for the horses first, as those were easier to bring down, would hurt many of the knights when going down, and would leave the knights on foot.

I`m seriously sick of all this overhyping of knights

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Well they were the best haha. I don't see any overhyping...

 

[G36E]

1. that guy wasn`t an average joe, but a SCA veteran; he personally showed me the vid once.
2. in that vid it`s clearly seen that the arrow can penetrate the plate, albeit from a shorter distance. And the arrowhead was not a long bodkin(which is the one represented in M&B, and is quite sharper than the one used in the vid)

next time, use better references. if you actually put a link for another vid from the series, people would know that when facing mounted knights, the archers would know to aim for the horses first, as those were easier to bring down, would hurt many of the knights when going down, and would leave the knights on foot.

I`m seriously sick of all this overhyping of knights

1. Knights were trained to fight from around, say 7 or 8. An SCA vet would probably have started learning at 16-18. 8-9 years extra of training right there.

2. It *can't*. There's no gambeson underneath, the armour is immobile and those are the arrow was fired at a velocity similar to the most powerful bow he could get.

Knights aren't overhyped, they're underpowered in M&B.

 

[Archonsod]

2. It *can't*. There's no gambeson underneath, the armour is immobile and those are the arrow was fired at a velocity similar to the most powerful bow he could get.

Yeah, and yet every chronicler from the era disagrees with him. Awfully big conspiracy ....

 

[G36E]

Link me.

 

[Night Ninja]

1. that guy wasn`t an average joe, but a SCA veteran; he personally showed me the vid once.

Knights aren't average joes either. They're a warrior elite drawn from a feudal society with plenty of infighting, and they've been trained since youth. If an average weekend warrior (no offense to the guy in the vid) can achieve that sort of proficiency after a few years, a knight should move in plate like it's a second skin.

However, there are certain situations where that weight can be very telling (generally when you would be pretty hard pressed to move about in the first place), and these are the sorts of situations when plate armour can be an inconvenience.

2. in that vid it`s clearly seen that the arrow can penetrate the plate, albeit from a shorter distance. And the arrowhead was not a long bodkin(which is the one represented in M&B, and is quite sharper than the one used in the vid)

Keep up, bodkins are no longer treated as the 'AP arrow'. Metallurgical analysis has revealed that the bodkin was generally indifferently treated, and it shows in its performance. Against plate armour it 'folds up like a pig's tail', to quote one source. A different type of arrowhead which was specially sharpened and hardened is now commonly accepted as being the 'AP arrow'.

I'm sick of the constant hype surrounding archers (especially longbowmen). They had their role, but they weren't the machinegunners of the medieval battlefield. After superior plate armour came about and every man-at-arms had bits and pieces, longbowmen were pretty much outmoded as a force. They were an immense pain in the ass to train, and supplying them with a constant stream of arrows is very taxing on the supply lines.

Yeah, and yet every chronicler from the era disagrees with him. Awfully big conspiracy ....

I'm pretty sure that the breastplate wasn't meant to represent that era.

 

[Kissaki]

1) You try it then. Put on a suit of armor and go for a little melee. You'll soon find out that even with pacing yourself you wont last for long. Even an athletic man will have difficulty fighting for more than few minutes at a time. You can put all the science and stuff behind it, but anyone who has tried that will tell you different.

The exact same thing is true if you let an athletic man fight buck naked: if he has no experience fighting, he will tire extremely quick, no matter how fit he might otherwise be. This is because he is not used to using his energy in a fighting scenario, and so expends too quickly. That was probably my biggest eye-opener when I started training kickboxing in days gone by: how utterly exhausting it was. Just a single two minute round had me wheezing. But with experience my body learned how to to use energy in that kind of situation, and I could go on longer and longer.

I am myself in rather average physical shape. I might even tire quicker than most in a run. I can keep on walking indefinitely, however, and someone who would out-endure me in a run might get exhausted from walking with me in the hills if he is not used to that. When sparring with longsword, too, I can go on virtually indefinitely, if it doesn't turn to grappling (which, again, is not my forte, and so I will tire quickly again).

If a man is used to fighting in armour, then he will be able to endure in armour, simply because his body is used to it.

 

[southpark]

yeah, but it's still gonna tire you out, after fighting awhile in plate armour i think it would be pretty easy to get taken out, well easier to take out than someone who had been fighting in lighter armour.

 

[Uther]

2. in that vid it`s clearly seen that the arrow can penetrate the plate, albeit from a shorter distance.

Yeah - this was basically a perfect shot for an archer, and the arrow didn't even scratch the wearer.
Don't forget there is a padded coat underneath.

And the arrowhead was not a long bodkin(which is the one represented in M&B, and is quite sharper than the one used in the vid)

Sharper =/= better ability to penetrate metal, you silly.
Bodkin arrows were specifically made to work against chain armor (to go in-between the rings), not full plate. Their tips were far too long and thin to penetrate plate.

if you actually put a link for another vid from the series, people would know that when facing mounted knights, the archers would know to aim for the horses first, as those were easier to bring down, would hurt many of the knights when going down, and would leave the knights on foot.

Knights would be trained to fall off horse with minimum injury
And once a knight is on foot - he's still better protected than any other unit on the battlefield.

[/quote]

I`m seriously sick of all this overhyping of knights

They aren't. You need to get over yourself and realize that just because archers are effective in M&B they were far from supermen after tempered steel armor came about.
Video i posted shows that their armor-piercing ability is increased greatly in M&B.