A point on wearing plate armor

[Gregor]

... I think we're missing a guy on this subject..
@MRPolo13
Get out of your closet damnit

To clarify, Plate provided extremely good (close to perfect) protection against cutting weapons, which had been standard sidearms for centuries. In addition it was pretty good at deflecting spears and unaimed thrusting weapons, as well as early projectile weapons. A user of plate really only had to worry about blunt crushing weapons, extremely close range combat (wrestling), and powerful projectile weapons (crossbows or longbows) at short range.

With the advent of plate on the medieval battlefield, both the design and techniques of swords began to shift to handle the new threats. Two-handed weapons became more popular as the shield was discarded. Swords often became longer and thinner.

You can see on the picture i posted how people used swords.

People used their swords for half-swording, where they would grip the sword by the middle of the blade in order to thrust through the gaps of his opponent's armor. You can see the man on the left going for a thrust, while his opponent is employing the mordschlag, where you take the blade in both hands and bash your enemy over the head with the hilt of your sword. Every part of the sword is dangerous in the hands of a proper swordsman.

 

[bettemus99]

... Yooouu don't have to tell me this. I'm just going to throw Polo onto here, because I'm aware he's much of a nerd on the subject and would probably love to see this.

 

[Camernater3]

I am afraid this is not true.

I've seen it done...

 

[Gregor]

I've seen it done...

First off, people did not use swords as cutting weapons versus plate

Second, the breastplate is the thickest part, and often had a shape that "deflected" such blows

Third, where have you seen this happen?

 

[Camernater3]

J

First off, people did not use swords as cutting weapons versus plate

Second, the breastplate is the thickest part, and often had a shape that "deflected" such blows

Third, where have you seen this happen?

Just a sec I'm trying to find the video, I remember it getting in though I may have been wrong on how far you can get with initial force

 

[Camernater3]

Around 2:19, this isn't the original video I saw but it's the same program

EDIT: BTW I never said this was a good idea, just possible

 

[Angryboy]

Around 2:19, this isn't the original video I saw but it's the same program
EDIT: BTW I never said this was a good idea, just possible

He pierced it by an inch, without the underclothing that most knights would have worn underneath. The leathers/clothes beneath would also slow the sword further. Also, an inch is nothing compared to how thick the armour and the underclothing would be. You might get a tiny pierce from the tip of the sword, but nothing that won't heal over in a few days. It certainly wouldn't be fatal, not even close.
Also, he had to prepare the sword by placing it exactly where he wanted to pierce, and took a good few seconds to actually do that stabbing. In a battle, that would take waaaay too long to be practical, especially that close to the guy you're trying to kill.

There is a huge difference between stabbing a piece of armour on its own with all the time in the world and actually using this in a battle. You would certainly die before you got even close to doing that. Sorry Camernater, but that video proves nothing when put into practice.

 

[Gregor]

Around 2:19, this isn't the original video I saw but it's the same program

EDIT: BTW I never said this was a good idea, just possible

1 MM armor can be pierced that way.

The more common 2-3 MM armor wouldnt be pierced that way.

 

[Redworrior83]

Okay, this

In combat it is really, really useful as you can resist many things. From sword blows to crossbow bolts.

is wrong. The sword blows bit is 100% correct, as swords would slide over the plates if hit too hard, giving a good defense. Crossbow bolts, however, tore through almost /any/ armor due to the strength with which the bolt was propelled and the best metal the plate would of been made of is thin-ish sheets of steel, which crossbow bolts would of torn /straight/ through. However, people don't seem to understand crossbows either. They are slow to load, with a maximum of 2 bolts being fired per minute, as they were /very/ stiff. They were easy to handle, meaning you didn't need much training to use them, but the sights were not the most accurate and they had about the same kick as a small handgun hitting you in the shoulder. It would also of taken time to get the crossbow aimed unless you had been trained and knew the correct methods to bring it up quickly and fire accurately. However, they do lose power at a range. They are basically the bow equivalent of a shotgun

 

[Gregor]

Okay, this

is wrong. The sword blows bit is 100% correct, as swords would slide over the plates if hit too hard, giving a good defense. Crossbow bolts, however, tore through almost /any/ armor due to the strength with which the bolt was propelled and the best metal the plate would of been made of is thin-ish sheets of steel, which crossbow bolts would of torn /straight/ through. However, people don't seem to understand crossbows either. They are slow to load, with a maximum of 2 bolts being fired per minute, as they were /very/ stiff. They were easy to handle, meaning you didn't need much training to use them, but the sights were not the most accurate and they had about the same kick as a small handgun hitting you in the shoulder. It would also of taken time to get the crossbow aimed unless you had been trained and knew the correct methods to bring it up quickly and fire accurately. However, they do lose power at a range. They are basically the bow equivalent of a shotgun

15h century crossbows had draw weights of 1000 pounds, and could easily penetrate most plate armors.
Only the very best armors, high carbon steel, especially hardened and with fluted/rippled surfaces could deflect a bolt from these bows.

I did not mean that plate stopped crossbows in general.

I meant that some plate /even/ stopped crossbow bolts

 

[MRPolo13]

Good stuff on this thread Do you actually own a set of armour? You sound like you do, if so, that's cool. I just do a lot of research but can't afford to spend the same amount as I would for a car on couple of chunks of steel xD

I wore a great helm a couple of times, and it is actually surprisingly comfortable and doesn't limit as much as one could initially assume. It actually blocks very little of your eyesight, although when I say "very little", I don't mean you can see half as much as you would without a helmet. It's not that bad, however, if you concentrate on your surroundings and take note of where everyone is. But helmet visors are actually really good at keeping things out.

As for wrestling plate armour when you have none - plate armour has sharp edges. Hurts

Personally, I think the biggest disadvantage to plate armour is the fact you're sitting in a cooker, behind couple of layers of steel, cloth and sometimes leather.

 

[MRPolo13]

much of a nerd

...

 

[Deash12]

...

"It's okay, man."

 

[Angryboy]

As I said earlier, the time-period we're in is a bit of a hit-and-miss on different technologies.
Earlier crossbows wouldn't have had nearly as much power as people seem to think, though later crossbows did. Whether it could penetrate plate-armour or not depends entirely on the era the crossbow comes from. I'd also like to point out that plate-armour didn't cover a person perfectly, there would still be gaps in the joints and (in most cases) behind the legs, where a crossbow bolt (or any weapon) could hit without worrying for it being blocked.

 

[Gregor]

As I said earlier, the time-period we're in is a bit of a hit-and-miss on different technologies.
Earlier crossbows wouldn't have had nearly as much power as people seem to think, though later crossbows did. Whether it could penetrate plate-armour or not depends entirely on the era the crossbow comes from. I'd also like to point out that plate-armour didn't cover a person perfectly, there would still be gaps in the joints and (in most cases) behind the legs, where a crossbow bolt (or any weapon) could hit without worrying for it being blocked.

Thats exactly why so many people misunderstand how things work, because the middle ages are a period that covered more than 1000 years, and technology developed in that time too.

 

[Redworrior83]

Also, full plate didn't come into effect until around the 17th century

 

[Gregor]

Also, full plate didn't come into effect until around the 17th century

What? That is untrue.

 

[Gregor]

Plate armour was used universally by knights/gentleman at arms after 1350 or so, infantry used -partial- armor
Plate armour became more and more common from around 1450

Here you have pictorial evidence of plate in the 15th century

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/C...tlan,_Die_Schlacht_am_Morgarten_(c._1470).jpg

Plate armour is very sophisticated equipment that requires several things: -Lots of iron in large pieces since you can't just weld two pieces of iron together and make armour that will hold up in battle. Plate armour becomes common when blast furnaces are introduced to europe, which allows making large chunks of fairly high quality iron. This iron would then be turned into steel by a variety of processes. These pieces were then hammered flat, often by water-powered hammer mills. By the 16th century, high quality iron from Austria was being exported as far away as England for the purpose of armour making. Blast furnaces would produce the raw material, mills would hammer it flat, and then and only then would armourers buy it and get to work.

By the 16h century, Kings were more and more powerful and so they established their own royal armouries in places like Innsbruck and Greenwich. These produced armours for royalty and favored courtiers, but they could also produce thousands of pieces of armour for the King's armies, at least in the case of Innsbruck (Maximilian I ordered 1000 breastplates from Innsbruck in a single order).

Sources: The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Dr. Alan Williams

Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight, Edge and Paddock.

 

[MRPolo13]

Also, full plate didn't come into effect until around the 17th century

15th mate. 15th.

The classical full plate armour as we know it originated in its true form in 15th century. That being, armour that covers almost the whole of your body. Before that there was a lot more gaps.

Edit: I was sniped

 

[Redworrior83]

I'll give you some quotes.
"By the 13th century (1200s), fasions were changing and people began to wear rigid breast and back plates as well as leg protectors on top of their chain mail. The earliest plates were made of hardened leather but, by the 14th century, this was starting to be replaced by metal plates" Also, sorry. I meant to say late 15th (As this is when people had the showoffy armor you see) >.<. 16th was the death of armor due to the invention of guns.