Why not equip yourself with the best armour?

[GreySaber]

sorry to be annoying but why not just not fight at all?

*Points catapult as your house*

Give me all your money or I will fling a huge rock at you.

 

[tsoum]

sorry to be annoying but why not just not fight at all?

*Points catapult as your house*

Give me all your money or I will fling a huge rock at you.

As for the topic I'd like to say that weight could be another reason. As in m'n'b if the enemy troops kill your horse and you wear a full drak armor a great helmet and black boots the your done for... A fat armor won't protect you from many hits, so it's better to be able to run away to your troops- to safety.

 

[Aqtai]

As for the topic I'd like to say that weight could be another reason. As in m'n'b if the enemy troops kill your horse and you wear a full drak armor a great helmet and black boots the your done for... A fat armor won't protect you from many hits, so it's better to be able to run away to your troops- to safety.

Not necessarily, full plate armour was in use by the end of the 14th century, for most of the following century many men-at-arms (i.e. "knights") actually fought on foot. This was especially true of English men-at-arms who almost always fought on foot in full plate armour on foot during the later years of the Hundred's Years War and the Wars of the Roses. the fact is a 15th century full plate harness weighed around 25-35 kg (45-55 lbs) and the weight was evenly distributed over the body. For a trained man the weight was not a problem. The real problem was getting overheated and dehydrated, which is why modern reenactors are constantly walking around with a plastic cup drinking water.

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

As for the topic I'd like to say that weight could be another reason. As in m'n'b if the enemy troops kill your horse and you wear a full drak armor a great helmet and black boots the your done for... A fat armor won't protect you from many hits, so it's better to be able to run away to your troops- to safety.

Not necessarily, full plate armour was in use by the end of the 14th century, for most of the following century many men-at-arms (i.e. "knights") actually fought on foot. This was especially true of English men-at-arms who almost always fought on foot in full plate armour on foot during the later years of the Hundred's Years War and the Wars of the Roses. the fact is a 15th century full plate harness weighed around 25-35 kg (45-55 lbs) and the weight was evenly distributed over the body. For a trained man the weight was not a problem. The real problem was getting overheated and dehydrated, which is why modern reenactors are constantly walking around with a plastic cup drinking water.

I've always wondered, where is the proof for this? Sure, we have reenactors running around in plate armor saying that it's not very cumbersome, but how reliable are their claims? How do we know for sure that plate armor isn't cumbersome?

 

[Cirdan]

Cumbersome is not the word. It's heavy, and you're carrying other equipment as well. Because it's distributed evenly, you won't feel weighted down. But try running around and fighting for half an hour, and you'll be much more tired out if you're wearing plate than if you're wearing nothing. 'Course, the odds of being dead are much higher if you're wearing nothing, but at least, you'll die without becoming completely drenched in sweat.

 

[Llew2]

I've always wondered, where is the proof for this? Sure, we have reenactors running around in plate armor saying that it's not very cumbersome, but how reliable are their claims? How do we know for sure that plate armor isn't cumbersome?

Because we have made suits of armor like they would have had.
Because the suits of armor that we have made like they would have had, are not cumbersome...

 

[Aqtai]

Not to mention many suits of 15th century armour still survive and are now present in various Museums in Europe and North America.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=1957
http://www.clevelandart.org/kids/armor/arsenal.html
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page2130.html
http://www.churburg.com/willkommen_engl/index.html#
http://www.museostibbert.it/a_europea.htm
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/introduction.asp?dep=4
http://www.bayerisches-armeemuseum.de/
http://bildarchiv.skd-dresden.de/skddb/MuseumSearch.jsp?museum=R%FCstkammer&catalogID=1&recordView=SearchResult_DetailsView&searchtype=museum

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

But do these old armors still fit people enough to reliably indicate that theyre not cumbersome? And how trustworthy are the works of reproductors? Not to say that these modern armorers are out to trick us, or anything, but how do we know that the reproduction plate armors work EXACTLY the way the 15th century ones do?

 

[Róisín]

But do these old armors still fit people enough to reliably indicate that theyre not cumbersome? And how trustworthy are the works of reproductors? Not to say that these modern armorers are out to trick us, or anything, but how do we know that the reproduction plate armors work EXACTLY the way the 15th century ones do?

They don't.  We're not as good at making armour as they were.



Whatever we can do with reproduction armours made by amateurs based on a ~30 tradition of recreation is completely outshadowed by the professional armourers who based their work on a millenium of practical innovation.

 

[Aqtai]

But do these old armors still fit people enough to reliably indicate that theyre not cumbersome? And how trustworthy are the works of reproductors? Not to say that these modern armorers are out to trick us, or anything, but how do we know that the reproduction plate armors work EXACTLY the way the 15th century ones do?

Because many of them are almost exact replicas. You also have to remember that medieval people were not stupid. They wanted armour to be an advantage on the battlefield, if it was heavy and cumbersome then the wearer would end up dead. Full plate harnesses were also very expensive pieces of kit. they were made to measure by highly skilled craftsman and in modern terms were equivalent to the price of a top end sports car like a Ferrari or Aston Martin.

Of course there were also cheap low end "munitions" armours and brigandines which were imported and exported in bulk. However if you actually look at these armours you will actually see that they are often quite ingeniously flexible and designed to fit people of different sizes by the use of straps, sliding rivets etc. Also Milan had a thriving export trade and shipped off huge number's of "export armours" all around Europe. These were bought "off the peg" by men-at-arms and knights who couldn't afford expensive bespoke harnesses.




I'm going to go off on a tangent here, but just to get an idea of the size of the Milanese arms industry, it's existence is documented as early as 1066 AD when a "Via Spadari", Street of the Swordsmiths, is mentioned. The chronicle of Bonvesin de la Riva (1288 AD) records "a marvelous number of armourers who daily produce every type of arm...and all of of tempered and polished steel, brighter than a mirror...all these types of arms pass from this city to other Italian cities..."  By the late 14th century Milan was exporting to Spain, France and germany harnesses made according to the local styles and preferences. These are referred to by names such as armature alla francese. the two most famous Milanese families of armourers were the Negroli family and the Missaglia family who served the Visconti and Sforza dukes of Milan for centuries, as well as the Gonzagas of Manua, the Este of Ferrara and the Medici of Florence. The Missaglia family also ran workshops in Rome, Naples, Barcelona and tours. They also had contarctual arrangements with other workshops which is indicated by diverse stamped maker's marks on various parts of a homogenous armour.

Also check out all the paintings, miniatures, drawings, effigies and brasses of men in armour. These guys weren't wearing heavy and cumberson armour, they were wearing highly sophisticated and practical pieces of kit.

 

[Iguana-on-a-stick]

Besides, if A] everybody who could wore armour and fought in it to good effect and B] all the armour we have left isn't cumbersome and C] armour that is reproduced as close to period stuff as we can make it isn't cumbersome and D] that the people using the armour now have less training in its use and are on average probably less fit than a medieval warrior...

Then it is logical to assume that medieval armour was in fact not cumbersome. It's rather weird to try and go out of your way asking "but how can we know that all our evidence isn't wrong and the armour secretly WAS cumbersome?" That's putting the cart before the horse... evidence strongly suggests A, so we assume A until proven wrong, we don't stretch the evidence until it proves B.