armor - NetSword Discussion Forums

NetSword Discussion Forums

NetSword Medieval Weapons Discussion

armor (Page 3)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: armor
Glaive203 Member	posted 02-26-2001 01:56 AM I know what all the authorities say about mail-I've read them all;exept those who've written in the last 8 years all the way back to the civil war(american naturally). Its not just the bayeux tapestry which shows them being stripped of their mail without linen armour underneath,the maciejowski bible shows the same thing which made me start looking for illustrations and descriptions of linen armor worn under mail before the 13th cen. I could not find any,and I always follow the evidence not the experts.One thing that you're forgetting is that DA and MA clothing was much thicker and poor heavily fullered than modern clothing and was worn in two layers and in the example you gave you describe yourself as being hurt but unharmed -what warrior could not take a little pain-I,myself can take a kick in the groin without being even stopped,which has shocked my foes and has been me more than one victory in a fight.The chest is one of the hardest places to land a blow-especially against a man armed with a shield and good mail will hold when hit with most foins to a soft point of the body. I need to clarify something which I think is causing confusion when I claim that the adoption of the sword of war and longsword caused padded armor to be worn I'm speaking of by knight who faced these weapons which were mainly used from horse back-the padded "coats of plates" were in use much earlier by footmen who faced heavier weapons earlier than the knights.PS naughty naughty I post controversal opinons on a certain message board and I don't want there to be any chance of identifying me there. IP: Logged
Glaive203 Member	posted 02-26-2001 02:14 AM to point out the obvious,its much harder to deliver a good blow from horseback and because there's little maneuver possible in the press the shield becomes much more effective.As for protection from arrows read caesar's gaulic war for just how effective a shield can be at stopping them.Archery is not effective at every close ranges were men can quicky close and slay archers who will probably rush their shots like most hunters do and miss,while at longer ranges arrows loose most of their force and are easy to stop(example:Napoleon's army encountered swarms of the traditional steppe nomads armed with their traditional hornbows,yet in their worst encounter with them they took only a few causalities and suffered no fatalities-their coats stopped almost all the arrows.I shield and mail coat are much more effective than a french coat at stopping arrows and the most common european short self-bows shooting short arrows pulled back with very poor grips wre very much less effective than the hornbow pulled with a shooting ring on the thumb. IP: Logged
Tomaz Member	posted 02-26-2001 03:55 AM Glaive: But there is substantial evidence that padding was worn under mail. You can't base your reasoning on a few medieval illustrations that may not even be completely accurate. I'm not aware of a single period illustration depicting mail on bare skin. How do you think padding looked like? A typical gambeson was nothing more and nothing less than a jacket. What you're seeing on medieval paintings may very well be padding, just that it doesn't look like that to you. I'm sure that a medieval warrior could take a little pain. But padding is absolutely necessary for protection against shock. Obviously, you're a born warrior, people keep kicking you in the groin and you're still proudly running around, crushing your enemies to dust. I admire your mighty strength and courage, but please allow me to humbly add that most of us and our ancestors can't compare to you. Which is why people have resorted to armor and padding in the past. Roel's incident could actually end very miserably. A few broken ribs in the best case, maybe a ruptured lung on a bad day. Why don't you ask our noted polearm expert Rob Lovett? If I recall correctly, he got hit pretty badly with a staff and was even taken to hospital. Blunt trauma can kill very quickly. A major internal bleeding was impossible to stop back in the Middle Ages. Even if you're wearing plenty of padding and a good mail hauberk, a strong blow with a sword can incapacitate you without cutting through the mail. And let me note that there was a plethora of much harder hitting weapons available - two-handed swords, flails, maces, clubs, polearms. Padding was an absolute necessity. If you don't believe it, try it yourself. As for archery, you're comparing apples to oranges. What Caesar encountered couldn't even remotely be compared to medieval crossbow/longbow volleys. Clearly, archers were highly vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat, which is why they were protected by spearmen and other types of infantry. But this combination of infantry and archers was very effective and could easily stop a cavalry charge. I'm not sure if Napoleon ever encountered any steppe horsemen armed with bows. And even if such an event truly did take place (which I somehow doubt), I wouldn't be surprised if the French repulsed the attack easily. After all, bows were replaced by firearms for a good reason and the French army was at that time the best in the world. [This message has been edited by Tomaz (edited 02-26-2001).] IP: Logged
willaume Member	posted 02-26-2001 06:11 AM Just my ten pences worth on the mail topic. mail alone is very efficient against cuts/slash from light wepons like dagger. For choping blows or blow delive by mediem to heavy weapons you do need to have padding (otherwise the mail will bruise an graze you). That bruising is enough to impear you fighting ability with just one blow. There is evidence that romans wore a thoracomachus (padded doublet) under their mail. That being said i guess that two pullover or leather+fur will do the same job. Mail (without or with padding) is pretty good against trusting weapons with "broad" head (ie gladius or spear) however it not that good against narrow tiped arrows (like bodkin or its antique equivalent) aginst bread head arrows the protection is acceptable save at close range. This lead the wearing a second layer of mail Bunching mails greatly improves the resitance to arrows (even narrow tipped). On the toughness of warriors. I pratice american football, akido and wing chung (and i used to practise Thai-boxing)and horse riding (which involves contact with the ground at high velocity aroud 50 to 60 kmh). It is quite right, one can get quite use to pain however if you practise the arts, you know that hard blows with a small impact area, on a member or in the rib cage area are not utterly painfull as they land but the deep bruising that quickly follows slows you down and make the usage of that part more difficult and less efficient. Padding (or laminar plates)reduces this effect. About horse fighting. Well, provided that you are not only you can land blows quite precisly but you can add the weight of the horse behind it. This why the "�paule en-dedans" and the "�paule en-dehors". This is as where the starting to gallop from behing halted was worked from the earlier recorded statges. Have you horse surge forward or jumps or just lift his front legs (wich is equivalent to starting to galop or jumping)that will increase the power of your blows dramaticaly. About bows and mail. here is what Plutarch on his book on Crassus (Marcus Licinius) at the Battle of Carrhae (53 B.C.)whilst his army engaged the Parthians. This is what he has to say about "...which could pierce armour and pass through every kind of defensive covering, hard or soft alike" or of "... hands pinned to their shields, and their feet nailed through into the ground, so that they were capable] neither fly nor flight. At the time the standard armour in the roman army was mail (padded i beleive). That being said. Several leayer of thick and relatively supple material (as the french soldier were wearing in russia) Is very efficient agains bow (it disipate the impact, offers less resistance for the arrow to penetrate. Beside from what Glaive said it was mounted warriors. A horse bow If very powerfull for its size (the parthians demonstrated it, do not compare with lets say the great english warbow or the mongols heavy recurve bow (the one they used on foot). I think what I am try to say is that both points are valid. lots of clothes (as required in cold climate) has a good stopping power against most arrows (probably even the most powerfull bows)especially if fire at a long range or with a broad head. But narrow head arrow are designed to pierce mail they have to defeat (one ring or two) to pass the armor. IP: Logged
FullerH Administrator	posted 02-26-2001 11:16 AM One thing that has not been said about the need for padding under mail is that, if the mail is broken by a blow and if you hav eno padding underneath, the rings will be forced into your body with the blade of the weapon, thereby increasing the severity of the wound. Now the folks in ancient and medieval times didn't know about bacteria, Hell they didn't know about tham during the War Between the States in 1861-1865, but they did know that if a wound got dirty, there would be problems. So, they knew that dirty mail rings forced into a wound would make problems. Hence, another reason for wearing padding under your mail. ------------------ Walk in the Light, Hugh IP: Logged
Felix Member	posted 02-26-2001 12:49 PM Napoleon did have a brush with bow-armed Russians, but they were Cossacks, if I remember correctly. In either case, I am not sure that the standard of archery in 1812 was the same as among Mongols in 1240. As has been pointed out, if the french were wearing overcoats (as seems likely in Russia) the heavy felt would be reasonably effective protection. IP: Logged
Tomaz Member	posted 02-26-2001 02:02 PM Felix: Well, I always thought that story about the Russian cavalry archers was a myth or at least a greatly overblown tale. Napoleonic era isn't my specialty, but as far as I know, the Cossacks - nor any other contemporary European cavalry - did not use bows in the 19th century. As a matter of fact, they were renowned for their skillful use of muskets and pistols. It is my understanding that the Cossacks were quite eager to adopt firerarms, which happened in the 16th or 17th century. On a sidenote, the majority of French troops went to Russia unprepared for winter, lacking suitable clothing and equipment. So I'd suspect that heavy winter overcoats were rare among the French soldiers during the Russian campaign. Willaume: The point I was trying to make is that no matter how tough you are, your body can't take much damage. Even if you have very high pain tolerance threshold, which is an exception rather than a rule, you won't be able to fight efficiently with a bad cut on your arm or a large internal bleeding in the abdomen. This is why armor was invented - to protect the body from physical harm. IP: Logged
Olaf Member	posted 02-26-2001 04:31 PM Glaive203: "What moderns love to call the "coat of plates" was never called that in ME,It was initially called a jesserants,than a "breastplate",after the true breast plate was invented it was called the "hauberk"-mail coats were than called "habergeons"." According to PhD David Nicolle's "Arms & Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350", a "jesserant" (actually jaseran, jazerant, jazerenc, jaserant) was a "fabric-covered and probably padded mail jerkin or hauberk (...) France and Norman England, late 11th - early 14th centuries." According to Nicolle's "Medieval Warfare Sorce Book, vol.1" (and almost every other scholarly work) a hauberk was a "mail armour for body and arms", and the haubergeon a short-sleeved version of the hauberk. The "coat-of-plates" is quite correctly a modern label for a type of armour originating in the mid-1200's, and which was known as "pair of plates" or just "plates", never "jesserant" (Nicolle, Edge & Paddock). In "Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight" Edge and Paddock writes: "Forms of 'soft armour' were certainly in general use by the mid-twelfth century", earlier stating that the Bayeux Tapestry offers inconclusive evidence of its use in the 11th century. There's enough confusion in the field of armour research as it is; no need to add unsubstantiated claims and definitions... IP: Logged
willaume Member	posted 02-27-2001 07:51 AM about Oops, That what i was trying to say as well. You do not even need to be cutted, a big bruise (or a small one weel placed) is enough to reduce your figthing ability.. IP: Logged
Glaive203 Member	posted 03-03-2001 09:25 AM olaf don't get your info from experts get it from ME sources.By the way you're also wrong about "pair of plates" that term denotes in ME a breast and back plate,what was later called a cuirass(the term first was limited to the leather version). IP: Logged
Olaf Member	posted 03-03-2001 07:36 PM So, how do you explain the following? "Un peire de plates couvertz d'un drap d'or; une peire des plates covertz de rouge samyt." ("A pair of plates covered with cloth of gold; a pair of plates covered with red samite." - My translation.) This is from a document describing the armour of Roger, Earl of March, written in Nottingham Castle sometime around 1330. Some 90 years before the first appearance of the paired breast- and backplates, I might add. Uh-oh, the last statement is based on the writings of an expert... IP: Logged

This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are CST, GMT-6	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Netsword.com retains rights to all contained on this site. Writtem permission must be obtained for reprint.

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a

Subscribe to our new digest service! CLICK HERE!