Was this in armour?
And were they 'faster' or 'slightly slowed'?
Don't get tripped laddy! Or run into a disengage head/throat thrust. Saw naginata vs katana once, not close.
Some friends demonstrated a greatsword vs. sword'n'board duel, a while back. That wasn't even a contest.
...One of the guiding principles of the style that I practice is that your sword is a defensive tool before it is an offensice tool - defend with it, and only if it is relatively safe to do so, attack with it.
Living in germany makes it hard to attend genCon... I planned to do it for many years but it never happened.
About sword-fighting principles:
Vor der Versatzung hüte dich
wenn es passiert sehr müht es dich
Beware the parry
it will bring you great distress
The reason for this is explained with the three basic tempi
Vor (before)
Nach (after)
Indes (during)
If you "defend with the sword" e.g. parry an attack, you are usually in the "after". Her acted, you reacted. Now, unless you are the faster fencer, the tempo is due for him to act again. Only when he fails to act do you have a chance to grap tempo and act instead.
This is inferior to not defending but instead attacking "indes" e.g. taking tempo from him actively. You may search youtube for "therealgladiatores" to get an idea of this principle.
The reason why this is often not done is that it makes combat very fast and very deadly. Full contact sparring with steel weapons is very dangerous, even with good armor and thus most often can't be done accurately (unless there are two expert combatants that know each other well).
Instead this kind of "bout" usually degrades to "he strikes, I parry, I strike, he parries - rinse and repeat until one is too slow, usually because of being tired". This is the reason why I do not like such an endeavor, it leaves much to be desired in terms of technique.
Poleaxe is a shorter version of the Halberd that was often carried on the back by Bow/Crossbowmen as it is a superb weapon against the plated knight on food. It is nice but it lacks the reach that makes the halberd so deadly.
@Slauneeh
I assume you mean the Renessaince Greatsword aka the Bidenhänder. This weapon is still some sort of enigma to weapon experts of what its role actually was and can not be compared to the Halberd/Naginata because it doesn't have the powerful thrust, the superb reach and the good flexibility by being dangerous in thrusting forward and raking backward.
In a battle between Greatsword and Sowrd&Board I would favor the S&B.
|
Have I understood correctly that you have no experience in medieval sword fighting arts and/or wearing medeival armor, that you objections are all based on theory?
I have the same amount of experience in medieval battle as you do.
None.
My knowledge comes from history, which I did major in if we are throwing out credentials rather than discussing "facts".
Your link only makes me think your armor is even less effective than I thought. Compare the armor you linked to an actual picture of the armor in the wikipedia link.
You will notice A LOT more plates on the one used in actual combat as compared to the one made for show.
As you point out, this is worn under a hauberk. Why? Because it isn't very good at preventing death without a Hauberk because it doesn't protect you very well.
So at this point you are wearing your "mobile" armor which isn't particularly practical unless you are also wearing, basically, a chain shirt.
That won't impede you at all...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proven...people keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. I have seen quite a few reinactments in my day and the guys wearing armor seemed pretty hindered relative to the guys wearing no armor I would think if it wasn't a hinderence they wouldn't have signifcantly reduced the amount worn in favor of greater mobility as history progressed. Perhaps you have links to proof? People in and out of armor attempting the same tasks, for example.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite simply, armor hinders movement. Some armor hinders people less. Some people practice enough that it hinders them less, or not at all. Some armor may be made so that it doesn't hinder at all.
All of this is irrelevant because Paizo and everyone before them have said 'in THIS world armor hinders movement'. That is the fact of the game world. You can change the game reality so that it doesn't, but that's not what Paizo did.
Have I understood correctly that you have no experience in medieval sword fighting arts and/or wearing medeival armor, that you objections are all based on theory?I have the same amount of experience in medieval battle as you do.
None.
My knowledge comes from history, which I did major in if we are throwing out credentials rather than discussing "facts".
Your link only makes me think your armor is even less effective than I thought. Compare the armor you linked to an actual picture of the armor in the wikipedia link.
You will notice A LOT more plates on the one used in actual combat as compared to the one made for show.
As you point out, this is worn under a hauberk. Why? Because it isn't very good at preventing death without a Hauberk because it doesn't protect you very well.
So at this point you are wearing your "mobile" armor which isn't particularly practical unless you are also wearing, basically, a chain shirt.
That won't impede you at all...
I hate to say it, but as someone who has a degree in history, having a degree in history often doesn't mean a thing regarding understanding old weapons and armors. Its not just a specialized area, its basically not covered by most academic historical study. I once heard an otherwise very good instructor claim medieval swords weighed ten pounds. The only thing it means is someone probably knows how to use historical sources well. Read the recent works on the 100 years war; at what was arguably the height of the medieval arms race, English and French knights were fighting on foot with pollaxes (old spelling, poll=head) because plate armor was effective, sword & shield fighting is lousy against a plated man with a two-hand weapon, and pollaxes can reach, trip, bash and stab. Oh, and a hauberk is worn under plate not over to provide extra cushioning, and typically only has chain protecting the few joints that plates must leave partly exposed for free movement.
Have I understood correctly that you have no experience in medieval sword fighting arts and/or wearing medeival armor, that you objections are all based on theory?I have the same amount of experience in medieval battle as you do.
None.
My knowledge comes from history, which I did major in if we are throwing out credentials rather than discussing "facts".
Your link only makes me think your armor is even less effective than I thought. Compare the armor you linked to an actual picture of the armor in the wikipedia link.
You will notice A LOT more plates on the one used in actual combat as compared to the one made for show.
As you point out, this is worn under a hauberk. Why? Because it isn't very good at preventing death without a Hauberk because it doesn't protect you very well.
So at this point you are wearing your "mobile" armor which isn't particularly practical unless you are also wearing, basically, a chain shirt.
You seem to be dodging the question. I didn't ask you if you had fought battles to the death using medieval weapons and armor. I asked if you had practiced any of the medieval fighting arts that exist based on manuscripts of medieval swordmasters, like Fiore or Johannes Liechtenauer.
From your answers, I am interpretting that you haven't done any sword fighting, either in armor or out of armor, that all your knowledge is theory based.
What time periode did you major in?
I am not sure if you read the wiki link that I provided, as the picture that you are talking about is a brigantine from the 15th century, and the example of coat of plates that I have is from the site of the Battle of Visby, in the 14th century. There are twenty something variants of armor recovered from the mass graves. Examples of the various armor types.
As well the construction area of the Wiki link states: The plates number anywhere from eight or ten to the hundreds depending on their size. The plates overlap but usually only enough to guarantee full coverage even when moving around and fighting. The coat of plates is similar to several other armours such as lamellar, scale and brigandine. Unlike scale armour which has plates on the outside or splint armour in which plates can be inside or outside, a coat of plates has the plates on the inside of the foundation garment. It is generally distinguished from a brigandine by having larger plates, though there may be no distinction in some examples.
Please note the bolded area where it mentions the number of plates.
Actually, I was under the impression that the hauberk was worn under the coat of plates. And I don't believe that the chain hauberk is needed to protect you in the Visby coat of plates - it will help, but not essential.
Living in germany makes it hard to attend genCon... I planned to do it for many years but it never happened.
Maybe one year.
Do you still practice?
Don't get tripped laddy! Or run into a disengage head/throat thrust. Saw naginata vs katana once, not close.Some friends demonstrated a greatsword vs. sword'n'board duel, a while back. That wasn't even a contest.
Outcome? Board take the hits and move in?
|
|
@Mistwalker
I actually did read the link, and it pointed out that what you are wearing would generally require a hauberk if it were to be used in battle, because it left so much exposed.
Perhaps why so much of it was recovered from the mass graves at a single battle where you keep pointing to it being used...perhaps this is why is wasn't worn at more battles?
If I am "dodging" the question, it is because I find the question ridiculous, as it seems to assert that your wearing modern manufactured armor in settings where your life isn't actually at stake is of more value to the discussion than the fact that when mobility became important, people who made life and death choices stopped wearing the bulky armor.
Because it slows you down.
If you would like to post videos of you doing the same tasks in and out of your modern manufactured armor of dubious survivability, that would be helpful. But your personal opinion is, well, your opinion, man.
I am pretty sure that if medieval warriors didn't think the armor was significantly hindering movement, they would have continued wearing it into the early gunpowder stages, when it would have actually still deflected a fair amount of damage. Hell, even today it would be better than nothing.
Instead, they wore less and less armor, because mobility was more important. Even now, Marines often shed armor plates for mobility, despite being much, much better than anything that was crafted in medieval times.
I await your video.
I don't Think he's been a jerk particularly. There are other folks (me) who have had to wear armor (modern and lightweight) that think it makes sense that wearing the armor slows you down. That experience has been provided as well. I don't think you have to provide first hand experience to be able to reasonably discuss something.
I don't have to be hit by shovel to know it will hurt. I don't have to be an alcoholic to know it will wreck your life.
The boards, especially the general discussion boards, should be a place where people can dialogue- without people being called jerks or telling them not to post.
To me that seems rude, but you are free to express your opinion.
Maybe it has or maybe it hasn't, Pomkin, but flag and move on or don't, right?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The language I've been using has been direct.
I am saying, directly, that without evidence I don't think the person is correct.
I am saying, directly, that what they are wearing is a) Impeding them if it weighs 60 pounds because...well...physics and b) Not reflective of what would be worn by anyone in actual combat since it is full of gaps where sharp things would enter and cause harm.
It is these gaps that allow mobility. The classic catch 22 of armor.
Which is the point of the discussion.
I cite, as evidence, the entire history of armor where once mobility became more important, they wore less of it.
That happened. That is evidence. Heavy armor didn't stop getting worn because of fashion choices. It was because you needed to move quickly and precisely to load firearms and adjust formations.
If anyone would like to post evidence of armor not seriously decreasing mobility, not "I don't think" or "My feelings are" but actual evidence, cool.
If you feel I am "combative" I would point out this is a discussion with people on opposite sides who disagree.
Youtube the video of you doing things in and out of armor, or cite the study someone else did showing it.
For example, I am linking to this article on medieval armor.
I also wanted to explain my comment regarding the armor, specifically, as it may not have made sense without context. Citing the "Battle of Wisby" in reference to the effectiveness of your armor is like citing Pickett's charge at Gettysburg when explaining how powerful an infantry charge was.
The "Battle of Wisby" is often referred to as "The Massacre at Wisby" because of how poorly the armor worn performed.
Pick up John Keegan's masterpiece, "The Face of Battle"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, science.
"The team found that walking and running with the armour used up twice as much energy as doing the same thing without any armour."
I second the suggestion on picking up something involving Keegan. I haven't read The Face of Battle but his A History of Warfare was good reading, though he kinda trashed Clausewitz's ideas in it and in my opinion didn't do himself any favors by it. Six Armies in Normandy would be another book I would suggest, though as it is a WWII book it kinda goes even further off topic than my tangent already has.
To contribute something to the topic: I believe it's impossible to argue that the weight and inflexibility of armor don't have any hindering effects, it's simply the scale of the effects that can be debated. I haven't worn any sort of medieval armor, just weighted vests and once put on a flak jacket at a surplus store. I can attest to physical activity being harder with the weighted vest, and I have done pull ups with extra weight attachments, those are a real pain. Nothing like doing 20 pull ups and feeling cocky, then trying it again with 50+ extra pounds, that's real humbling. Of course, adding 30 pounds of body weight and being out of training for months is another way to be humbled, even double digit pull ups seem so far away.
Edit: Here is the abstract of the research article publishing the results used in the article ciretose linked to. You can view the abstract yourself and also data supplements including the mass distribution of the different armor pieces. Unfortunately you seem to have to be a member to get the full text of the research article.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree on his treatment of Clausewitz's, but Keegan is one of the few to really dig into logistics and questioning accounts rather than the standard "hero" based storytelling of a lot of other writers, so I forgive him.
I think the game takes into account regular armor vs personally made armor (masterwork) and does what it can in the framework of a game with variables minimized for convenience.
You have to have variability between armors, and the minimum variance you can have is 1.
The difficulty is reduced with training or being a class that masters armor. Which makes perfect sense. I don't think it is too much of a penalty for someone untrained in non-masterwork armor to be severely penalized when attempting skills.
I've got to agree, when you bring out all that you have done to the argument. Well argued.
Except that characters who are trained in wearing the armor in question still have full ACP. 'Armor Training' is a class feature for one specific class that does not happen until... what, is it third or fourth level?
You know, close to the peak of normal human abilities. For a single point of reduction to a penalty that is too high in the first place.
Agree on his treatment of Clausewitz's, but Keegan is one of the few to really dig into logistics and questioning accounts rather than the standard "hero" based storytelling of a lot of other writers, so I forgive him.
I think its great when people can bring themselves to forgive the transgressions of one of the most highly respected military historians of our time ;).
I agree with you position that armor should cause penalties, there is no question of that, and I think the fighter heavy armor training reduction is a good idea (though perhaps it shouldn't be only fighter? Maybe feat-based options?).
I'd like to mention that armor disappearing was due to many more factors than formation mobility and firearm dexterity - prohibitive cost combined with a sudden vulnerability to new weapons compared to impressive protection from traditional dangers are among the chief culprits in my opinion. The cuirass hung around a long time since it could be made to deflect small arms and protect vital areas without the weight and expense of creating a whole harness of plates and joints. I'd argue that breastplates should have very small ACP, except that I've always assumed that 'breastplate' in game terms meant 'breastplate and some kind of arming/legging/skirt'.
|
|
I'd like to mention that armor disappearing was due to many more factors than formation mobility and firearm dexterity - prohibitive cost combined with a sudden vulnerability to new weapons compared to impressive protection from traditional dangers are among the chief culprits in my opinion.
Very fair point. Armor's decline mirrored the decline of castles in that way.
|
|
I cite, as evidence, the entire history of armor where once mobility became more important, they wore less of it.That happened. That is evidence. Heavy armor didn't stop getting worn because of fashion choices. It was because you needed to move quickly and precisely to load firearms and adjust formations.
I'm not an armour wearer apart from a single long party wearing a long chainmail shirt (Fact: it did not inhibit drinking ability... though my shoulders ached after 2 hours needed periodic sitdowns and adjustments so that all the wieght didnt fall there).
That said reduction in armour was as much a financial decision as a practical one. Guns cost money... armour costs money. Guns are more useful than armour to get conflicts finished (keeping your guys alive isn't really as important as killing the other guys).
Then you've got mass armies. Guns are easily provided off the rack - effective armour? Not so much. Its an added expense, weight and burden on the supply chain/logistics.
Finally a change in tactics and strategy. While Sun Tzu and everyone else for thousands of years advocated lighting war and swift movement, the requirements for the projection of effective offensive strength needed to 'win' needed larger numbers and heavier equipment than the 19th and 20th centuries.
Firearms and artillery changed that equation. Armour is heavy - not saying it was hard to fight in one way or another but weight will either slow movement OR reduce endurance for continued movement - it has an effect. Modern tactics and strategy is all about movement, its an evolutionary change that has come with the change of equipment.
So not saying Cirtose is wrong here - mobility is needed and has had some impact on why armour isn't worn now but saying its we don't use armour now, ergo armour was hard to use isn't exactly right either.
Finances came into play, but a lot of that was the ability to make a poorly trained low cost peasant able to drop a highly trained high cost Knight in armor due to new technologies.
The cost of firearms was, I would argue, be comparable if you are discussing the cost of manufacture when you add in gunpowder (including the corning process). Sure, it would be lessened by mass production, but so then would be the armor at the same time.
Consider it wasn't until Gustavus Adolphus that even rudimentary uniforms to the infantry were provided to be worn in the 15th and 16th century. Then a few centuries later everyone was provided both uniforms and firearms. Up to that point you armored a few guys who could generally defeat any kind of peasant uprising. The few trained and armored were far greater than the many untrained, as even a "lucky" shot wasn't talking out the armored warrior.
When the armor reduced movement and rate of fire, but didn't prevent death, it stopped being worth getting. When a moderately trained group of peasents could bring down a castle that took generations to build with cannon fire, they too stopped being worth getting.
As the one article I posted said, the first thing removed was the leggings, which was a trade of leg vulnerability for movement. If the trade off kept troops alive and didn't impede firing, at least breastplates would have continued.
I mean, you are outfitting each man with a firearm, which is much harder to make, and requires regimented training. If in a given volley it deflected even, say 25% of casualties, it would be worth it, unless it had other significant detriments.
So, I suggest, it did. Otherwise civil war soldiers would have been crafting armor to take with them.
Breatsplates were indeed the last to go, Helmets are still in use today, everything else is usually not worth it.
ACP in Pathfinder are a workable way of expressing how armor hinders you. If at all, they are too harmless.
It is interesting to see the extreme swings in the public opinion. if you asked a few years ago, most would have said that in Platearmor you can hardly move and nowadays it is that Plate is hardly an inconvenience...
Do you still practice?
Once or twice per week ---> Krifon
|
|
Breatsplates were indeed the last to go, Helmets are still in use today, everything else is usually not worth it.
ACP in Pathfinder are a workable way of expressing how armor hinders you. If at all, they are too harmless.
It is interesting to see the extreme swings in the public opinion. if you asked a few years ago, most would have said that in Platearmor you can hardly move and nowadays it is that Plate is hardly an inconvenience...
I think a large part of this is people being spoiled by modern plate armor made with modern materials and intended to be worn more for style than function.
What even a moderately skilled person can make using modern tools and materials is very different than what was being functionally worn on the battlefield.
I do think it was somewhat overblown in the past, but I also think that a lot of what passes for armor currently is a) more costume than armor and b) Made with things and of things that weren't reasonably available to most medieval blacksmiths.
Yeah, we once made striking tests with some of renowed european and american armorers products. The results were sometimes terrifying.
A full force blow with a longsword split some of the helmets and dangerously dented some breastplates (would have broken ribs).
There is much evidence that this wasn't the case with real medieval plate. The arabians reported that the armor of the european Knights "could withstand the heaviest blows from our finest steel unscathed", and fine steel they had indeed in Damascus.
So while medieval plate wasn't like Renaissance recreational jousting Armor, which was so heavy you hardly could walk, it also wasn't that you could easily swim in it...
They're not even D&D cliches. That's the maddening thing. They're Rolemaster cliches that were mistakenly added to D&D in 2000.
I do think it was somewhat overblown in the past, but I also think that a lot of what passes for armor currently is a) more costume than armor and b) Made with things and of things that weren't reasonably available to most medieval blacksmiths.
Plate armor wasn't really used much before European metallurgy become quite advanced in the fourteenth century. Suits of plate become possible with large European 'factories' using more modern smelting and metalworking technology far beyond what a medieval blacksmith's shop could have created. Once a thin plate could be made to the hardness of a thin sword blade without the problem of folding/pattern welding, plates became useful. Whatever else can be said about the armor produced in this way, knights who often had to wear it while fighting hand-to-hand with large weapons over extended periods chose to use it, so they must have considered it worth the weight.
|
|
Don't bother, everyone in this thread with any credibility has already agreed that medieval full plate doesn't weigh thousands of pounds. The people keeping this thread alive are "historians" that defend D&D cliches. You'll soon be called out because your friend was wearing styrofoam armor and a real full plate armor wouldn't allow the wearer to even breathe since it was a solid 3' cube of steel or whatever crazy ideas they have.
Yes, those crazy ideas backed up with evidence, including links to science showing wearing armor expends twice as much energy.
Trust the anecdotes over the evidence. Truthiness is the way to go...
|
|
Plate armor wasn't really used much before European metallurgy become quite advanced in the fourteenth century. Suits of plate become possible with large European 'factories' using more modern smelting and metalworking technology far beyond what a medieval blacksmith's shop could have created. Once a thin plate could be made to the hardness of a thin sword blade without the problem of folding/pattern welding, plates became useful. Whatever else can be said about the armor produced in this way, knights who often had to wear it while fighting hand-to-hand with large weapons over extended periods chose to use it, so they must have considered it worth the weight.
I do think it was somewhat overblown in the past, but I also think that a lot of what passes for armor currently is a) more costume than armor and b) Made with things and of things that weren't reasonably available to most medieval blacksmiths.
Two issues with this.
1. Define "Advanced". What is "Advanced" for the 14th century is quite primitive by today's standards. Carburized iron is still quite heavy, relative to even the most basic materials of today. Not to mention the tools of the time being behind the hinging mechanics that allow any kind of reasonable mobility.
2. Those posting with "knowledge" of personal use are linking to armors that are, well...not very armored. As Mic Man pointed out, his strike tests showed the armors didn't hold up to being struck with weapons.
Which, you know, is the whole point of what they do.
As I've looked up various sites where you can purchase "armor", Aluminum has replaced Iron.
Here is another interesting article on comparing modern manufactured armor to what was available in medieval times.
So a question arises over what the people who are claiming personal experience are wearing, and how does it compare to what was actually worn. This article suggests that studded leather was actually likely historically the coat of jacks linked to above by Mistwalker. In game it is clearly a Coat of Plates, which has a -2 ACP. Which I don't even think Mistwalker would argue is off.
The evidence, both from science and history, is that armor seriously impacted mobility to the point that when the armor became somewhat vulnerable, and mobility became important, the armor came off.
The truth is, as usual, to be found in the middle. Plate wasn't excruciatingly heavy but it also wasn't a piece of cake. There are many historical texts that state that knights drowned in even small bodies of water. In one instant it was written that the Knights took off their armor
Also, as crietose already pointed out, the materials were still inferior, you can't take contemporary steel and state "this is what plate was made of".
Don't bother, everyone in this thread with any credibility has already agreed that medieval full plate doesn't weigh thousands of pounds. The people keeping this thread alive are "historians" that defend D&D cliches. You'll soon be called out because your friend was wearing styrofoam armor and a real full plate armor wouldn't allow the wearer to even breathe since it was a solid 3' cube of steel or whatever crazy ideas they have.A friend of my is member of a historical group, wearing real full plate or roman armor sometimes, once wearing full plate he fell into a river, everyone including himself were suprised how easy it was for him to swim out of the deep part of the river. He was surprised because he was a d&d player and other people were because those who don't know better believe he should have sunk like a stone.
Now, the conclusion is D&D was made by people who don't know better :)
Maybe not styrofoam, but I'd really like to know what type of metal that armor was made of... metal usually doesn't float.
Snorkling divers use belts with ~2kg of lead to offset the diving suit. I tried once to swim with no suit on, only wearing that belt... it's doable over short-medium distances, but you tire way faster.
Add rough water to that and it becomes a struggle.
I read quite a few times here that medieval armor is supposed to weight ~40kg? that about half of most people's weight...
now weight works differently in water, because water has a higher density then air... but metal has higher density then water so it'll still make you sink.
Now aluminium has less density then steel, so aluminium will weight "less" in water then steel, which will weight less than lead.
Do we have a physicist here, who can calculate how much 1kg of aluminium/iron/steel/lead weights under water? That way we can have a realisic estimate how much you "carry" while swimming in armor?
@joriandrake
- what metal was your friend's armor made of?
- how far did he have to swim and how big/deep/strong was the river?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read quite a few times here that medieval armor is supposed to weight ~40kg?
No, that would be the aforementioned Renaissance Armor used for playing knight, about 400 years after the high middle ages, where Platearmor had it's peak time. These were extra thick for extra protection during a jousting and you could hardly climb your horse with it. It is this armor that you encounter in almost every castle in europe.
The very few remaining original armor parts suggest that the armors where around 25kg, still quite heavy, but not excruciatingly so.
And, as a sidenote, is is usually not useful to question stories that already suggest an anecdotal background.
Also, as crietose already pointed out, the materials were still inferior, you can't take contemporary steel and state "this is what plate was made of".
I certainly didn't mean to imply that late medieval metal was the same as today's materials, just that there was a dramatic change in capability compared to what people would generally conceive of as medieval technology. Armored plates aren't just solid slabs of metal shaped to fit around a body; their effectiveness comes from being skillfully curved and rounded to deflect force, and having 'spring' to their tempering so that a surprisingly thin piece of metal can go a long way - if skillfully crafted. People today attempting to recreate medieval armor are fumbling in the dark compared to the professional armories of the late medieval period that had generations of experience and the continual investment of wealthy elites. Also, people attempting to judge the overall effectiveness of armor by smashing at it while it sits compliantly still are falling into what might be called the 'Deadliest Warrior' trap.
I like re-creation combat and 'living history' in general, but with a few exceptions I'd agree that you can't put a lot of stock into re-creation combat as evidence any more than you can put stock into re-creation arms and armor. It seems to me that we tend to seriously short-change historical peoples rather than ask the logical question: if the elite of society chose to fight battles in this armor, often in brutal hand-to-hand combat, on foot, against opponents who could certainly bash them upside the helmet or trip them with a pollaxe if they were too slow, how bad could it really have been?
Anyhow, I think most people here agree that there should be some kind of armor check penalty; I'm starting to suspect we're mostly just arguing to flex our historian-muscle between shifts driving our taxis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, those crazy ideas backed up with evidence, including links to science showing wearing armor expends twice as much energy.
Trust the anecdotes over the evidence. Truthiness is the way to go...
Ciretose, you seem to have confused me with someone who was saying that there should be no ACP. I have clearly stated more than once in this thread that there should ACPs, but that some of them may be a bit high.
You never did state which time period that you majored in history - I take it that it wasn’t the medieval period?
Your position is that since I have not fought any lethal battles with medieval swords and armor, my training gives me no more experience with it that it does for you, who have not done any training at all.
Could you explain to me why militaries train? Why do they have troops practice with weapons and gear on a regular basis? Why do eastern martial artists train?
According to you, there is no point, as people with no training at all, say shopkeepers, would fair equally as well as those who have trained.
The Battle of Wisby was shopkeepers against a trained military. The shopkeepers were killed in their thousands. I suspect that the training that the military force had played a big part in their surviving and that the lack of training on the part of the shopkeepers played a big part in so many of them dying.
Out of curiosity, will you be at GenCon this year? If so, I would gladly bring down some gear and spar with you. You would have the opportunity to prove that my training give me no advantage over you and your theories. And I would have the opportunity to prove to you that training does count, even if the fights are not to the death.
You have bashed my armor, saying that it is show armor, not practical, battle armor. That my wisby modeled armor was abandonned after Wisby because more mobile fighters overcame it. Please note that the Battle of Wisby was in the 14th century, that armor kept becoming more and more important to battlefield survival until the 16th century.
Please note that one of the Wisby armors (type 24 I think) is very much like the brigantine that was still being used a century or two after the Battle of Wisby.
Please also note that the two articles that you linked to seem support my argument and not yours.
These were chain mail armor and plate armor. Often both of these types were used in conjunction to achieve the best features of each.
Throughout the long history of armor there have been periodic hints that ranged weapons would spell the end of personal body armor. Battles such as the massacre at Wisby or the battle of Poitiers pointed out the vulnerabilities of many types of armor to arrows and crossbow bolts. With each such demonstration armorers responded by adding more plates or more deflective properties to the armor. By the sixteenth century guns came into wide use and heavy armor lost any effectiveness it once had. In fact, armor only made for a larger and slower target in the face of gunfire. With guns becoming increasingly powerful and accurate, heavy body armor became useless. There was some effort to produce thicker armor to block bullets, but the armor simply became too heavy to wear effectively. By the sixteenth century guns had killed chivalry and brought Europe out of the Middle Ages.
Commentary by L. Long
If anyone says that medieval armor was totally ineffective, it's a sure sign they don't know the least bit about it.
The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy.
Dr Askew explained: "Yes, they could have removed the leg parts of the armour, but it might have meant they would have been cut on the leg and killed that way."
He added though, that this may not have been such a problem in the 16th Century.
With the advent of guns, hand-to-hand combat decreased, and this too affected the design of the armour.
He said: "It is interesting to see though that as armour developed into the 16th Century, the part of the armour that was lost was the lower leg - the thing that we found increases the cost of movement."
....
"But no-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful."
I suspect that the breathing problem was because the volunteers for the test were re-enactors and not practitioners of medieval sword fighting. At a tournament this summer, one of the gentlemen in full plate had to keep taking breaks to catch his breath, because he had put on a bit of weight and couldn’t breath properly. His armor had gotten too small.
Edit: added the last phrase as a clarification.
|
|
@Mistwalker
1) Your armor is functionally -2 ACP. Would you argue that is unreasonable?
2) Shop keepers don't generally have even basic armor training feats.
3) It was being used after Wisby because it was relatively cheap and easy to make, and because incorporated in the reduced armor movement that came when plate could be pierced. It functionally became an "arrow-proof vest", and even that was abandoned when soldiers needed to have better freedom of movement to quickly load weapons.
Your experience in modern manufactured (I would argue costume) armor that would only have an -2 isn't greater that the whole of history and actual scientific experiment.
I have no idea how bolding where it says that heavy armor makes you slower helps your argument.
No one is saying armor didn't work. I am saying it slowed peoples movement down significantly. Which is why people stopped wearing it, because as you bolded "But no-one wears stuff on the battlefield if it isn't useful."
Plate mail armor would actually have deflected a good amount of rifle fire up through the civil war. But they didn't wear it.
Why?
Because it slowed movement and rate of fire. Try loading a rifle in your armor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is important to mention that plate armor in its heyday, combined with the warhorse, offered almost total protection from being killed in action (and the practise of ransom offered protection from being killed after the action).
As such Plate isn't accurately portrayed in PFO (gosh, who would have thought) where it gives only a small bonus over chain.
Makes me think that truly heavy armour was almost like DR, but it tired you out.
stuff
As you keep ignoring questions or try and deflect them in various ways, I do not see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who appears to have adopted the "I have made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with facts" mindset.
Enjoy your games.
|
|
stuffAs you keep ignoring questions or try and deflect them in various ways, I do not see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who appears to have adopted the "I have made up my mind, don't try and confuse me with facts" mindset.
Enjoy your games.
You want to reframe the conversation where you are speaking from a position of expertise based on your personal experience in armor that would have a -2 ACP in the game and isn't reflective of actual period armor.
I don't agree with that position.
Post links or citations if you want to attempt to "confuse me with facts", as those things may actually contain facts.
It is important to mention that plate armor in its heyday, combined with the warhorse, offered almost total protection from being killed in action (and the practise of ransom offered protection from being killed after the action).
As such Plate isn't accurately portrayed in PFO (gosh, who would have thought) where it gives only a small bonus over chain.
Depending on the period of the armor worn and the weapons (and politics) of the battles there were some very ugly death-tolls of men in armor, but it's definitely true that it's not really realistically represented in most gaming.
Realism gets statistically complicated too fast anyhow, and I doubt people would end up liking a system where plenty of regular armor was near-immune to slashing and you really just shouldn't take on well armored enemies with a blade... unless maybe you want to start getting into a sword realistically being able to slash+bludgeon or pierce+bludgeon or just bludgeon depending on the attack...