How did plated armour work in combat? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14120985
I just visited the royal armory and I got to look at this in detail. I think the idea was to bash the other guy carefully until he collapsed from heat stroke. At that point it was fairly easy to turn him face up and put a plastic bag over his head.
#14120988
If two combatants were dressed in full plate armour, how would that work out? Did they just bludgeon each other in the head until one of them was knocked unconscious?


That's one option. With a heavy enough blow you could fold in the helmet and cause a compression fracture to the guy wearing it (which would kill him), but more likely you'd try to get your sword into a place on the armor where two pieces met. When a heavily armored person (like a knight) was fighting someone who was not heavily armored, the guy without was SOL unless he had an armor breaker, basically a heavy ax/pick combination on the end of a pole. The ax could be used to to kill regular people, and the pick would be able to penetrate the armor and kill the squishy parts inside.
#14120992
I think the solution was a pair of sneakers, a sign on your back that said "your mother was a whore", and a fairly thin but long ice-pick device. With this equipment I take off walking fast, the dude in iron chases me, he eventually collapses, and I use the pick to blind him. Then I strip him, put the junk on my mule and send him back to his buddies with the sign stuck on his chest.
#14121024
You typically didn't wear full plate armour in melee combat. It was designed to be used in a heavy cavalry charge. In fact plate armour was developed in response to stuff like longbows and later gunpowder that shot through chain mail.
#14121036
I'm pretty sure the longbow undermined plate armor, Travesty, not promote it. Plate-armored knights, for instance, had been a part of war for hundreds of years when, at the battle of Agincourt, the English made quite a pointed argument against the validity of French Knights in battle.
#14121050
Thats true Figlio. However Plate Armour did start to develop only towards the late middle Ages when the technology became available. And It did get heavier and heavier in response to new weapons until it really became obsolete.
#14121107
I bet you are right, it had to be used with horses. I did notice most of the suits had a hook under the right armpit to hold a lance. I think the trick is to use volunteers to put on turtle like wooden suits, with protruding blades. two lines of these guys could be followed by two lines of guys holding plastic bags. When the horsemen fell then bags could be applied over their faces.
#14121416
Captain Sam wrote:If two combatants were dressed in full plate armour, how would that work out? Did they just bludgeon each other in the head until one of them was knocked unconscious?

As better plate armour became more common, so did weapons intended to defeat it. So while a sword isn't much good against someone in full plate, a decent mace, hammer or pick could either create enough concussive force to make the armour less relevant or for something like a pick - just make holes in it.

Figlio di Moros wrote:I'm pretty sure the longbow undermined plate armor, Travesty, not promote it. Plate-armored knights, for instance, had been a part of war for hundreds of years when, at the battle of Agincourt, the English made quite a pointed argument against the validity of French Knights in battle.

Yes and no. Higher quality plate could actually withstand shots from a longbow, and some could even stand up to the handguns of the era. While full plate armour did fall out of favour, plate-armoured cavalry continued for quite a while after that in the form of cuirassiers. On the other hand one of the more significant innovations of the longbowman wasn't just his weapon, but the principle that a nation could raise units of well trained, reasonably effective infantry. This is reflected even more as pike-based formations become more popular.

Social_Critic wrote:At that point it was fairly easy to turn him face up and put a plastic bag over his head.

If you're trying to be funny you aren't doing a very good job.
#14123905
If two combatants were both wearing plate armor they would be knights and would usually not kill their opponant but would capture him for ransom...but if they really wanted to kill their man they would use a dagger or something to get between the plates...

But unless I'm mistaken, what nearly made the armored horseman obsolete was one of these:

Image

With one of these a footman could hook a knight from horseback and open him like a can of peas while on the ground...and these footmen did not take prisoners for ransom!
#14126073
How did plated armour work in combat? It didn't work very well when heavy cavalry faced well trained light cavalry armed with powerful bows and organized with a fast and well run communications system. This is from Wikipedia about the defeat of an European army at Legnica

The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 29, says that "Employed against the Mongol invaders of Europe, knightly warfare failed even more disastrously for the Poles at Legnica and the Hungarians at Mohi in 1241. Feudal Europe was saved from sharing the fate of China and Muscovy not by its tactical prowess but by the unexpected death of the Mongols' supreme ruler, Ogedei, and the subsequent eastward retreat of his armies


This battle took place in 1241.

Here's excerpts from Wikipedia about the battle of Manzikert between Byzantines and Selyuk Turks in 1071:

The Seljuks were organized into a crescent formation about four kilometres away.[15] Seljuk archers attacked the Byzantines as they drew closer; the centre of their crescent continually moved backwards while the wings moved to surround the Byzantine troops.


Also, later in the battle we read:

However, the right and left wings, where the arrows did most of their damage, almost broke up when individual units tried to force the Seljuks into a pitched battle; the Seljuk cavalry simply disengaged when challenged, the classic hit and run tactics of steppe warriors. With the Seljuks avoiding battle, Romanos was forced to order a withdrawal by the time night fell.


In "Theory and Practice of Medieval Warfare" we can see that heavy armour was rarely used when on foot, and that it was oversold by historians. The key most texts repeat, is that it was necessary to have a well organized army opposing them. And when I thought of it, the great historical defeats were between armies using heavy cavalry and armies using light cavalry which had effective tactics to refuse engagement. As they say at West Point, they were adept at asymetrical warfare. I mention Manzikert and Legnica because they were defeats in which European armies fought against light archer cavalry.

Regarding whether an arrow could go through chain mail, evidently it could do well enough - it was the mongol's use of a heavy compound bow, coupled to the light cavalry which allowed them to conquer such a large empire.

I know my posts are too subtle and lack the ponderousness some of you wish to see, but if we distill what goes on, it's the refusal to hold ground, the ability to surround, and the discipline to wait until the enemy is gasping for air which allows victory in almost all circumstances. This lesson seems to be lost to US generals in Afghanistan, and to others who like to write and play act warfare.
#14270929
One could bang around like an insane tank, but most would want to avoid destroying their armor.
The basic principle was using superior arms against ones opponent, as in a knight in armor, on horseback against a mob of poorly armored foot soldiers. However in singular combat, with an equally equipped foe, it would come down to wit, experience and technique.



The idea.
[youtube]osTQrJ_axfc[/youtube]

The how.
[youtube]mjT4JepA-Vc[/youtube]
#15289655
The story of armor in the mediveal ages is a very long and complicated one, and we constantly learn more about it.

Armor was used all over Europe, and the ways it was made differed all over Europe, and this happened all over mediveal times, so it was in a constant flux.

Each mediveal armor was handmade and therefore ultimately an unique piece. The better models especially of plate armor would also be carefully tailor made for the wearer. Only very few examples survived, and it was usually only the high quality ones, though some examples also surived in swamps etc. Thats why each time we find a weapon or an armor from these times, we might find more surpises. And it may have been just be a unique idea of one smith at one time, we can never be sure.



The original metal armor, from antique times, and originally made from bronze, was the chain armor. Also called (confusingly) mail. By the way never called chainmail, that word is a modern invention and really superflous, since mail by definition is always made from chain.

There are many more armor types of course. One of the most important ones was the Brigandine, which always existed alongside plate armor. The Brigandine was smaller pieces of steel rivetted together in such a way that there are no gaps. Here again there are many different types of Brigandines, some would have really big plates and would basically be plate armor, but all would overall be more comfortable to wear than plate armor, while offering less protection.

Brigandines would typically be worn by archers, who needed a less restrictive armor, but really everyone seem to have worn them, including nobles, in a trade of protection for comfort.

By the very way they've made, Brigandines, unless they contained large front pieces of metal like a plate armor, wouldnt protect very much against attacks with a lance.



But the core reason why plate armor was the developed when chain armor turned out to be too weak to protect against warbows anymore.

This was mainly because of England. By english law, every man had to train with the warbow regularily, and thus a lot of people with strong bowman muscles existed. This means specific muscle groups not usually used. You cen see them on modern people who train with these medieval warbows. They have very strong looking backs.

With draw weights of about 140 to 160 pound average, but up to 200 pounds for the strongest bows (and strongest bowmen), and carefully constructed corresponding arrows with tough shafts and hardened steel tips, these bows would shred through even thick double chain armor, and also through lesser quality plate armor.

The main event during which this was important was the hundred year war between England and France.



With the upcoming of plate armor, melee weapons had to be adapted to the conditions. Topheavy weapons such as warhammers, battle axes, poleaxes have been quite able to break bones even if you would be wearing plate armor. Heck simple wooden clubs could work pretty well against plate armor if you made them heavy and top heavy enough.

Swords still stayed in use, but if they have been adapted to work against plate armor, they would be much more sturdy, heavy, and less flexible, and would be halfsworded, one hand at the grip and one near the tip, basically turning them into a dagger with more impact power. Halfswording is actually what the oldest surviving dueling manual is about.

Daggers themselves also have been very effective against plate armor, if you would go hand to hand, i.e. really close, and could find a gap in the opponents armor. They also would be commonly used to cut the leather binds that hold the armor together, allowing to cut the unprotected body below it. This is why for example in italy, chain armor would still be worn below plate armor, to give at least some protection once the plate armor is breached. That also adds a lot to the weight to wear, though. Chain armor is both heavier than plate armor and is more uncomfortable to wear, because plate armor puts the majority of the weight on the hips, while chain armor by the way it works would put the weight on the shoulders.



In short, in melee the protection from plate armor is limited, at least if the opponent has adapted their weapons. But in melee the warrior inside the armor could react to the opponents actions. But arrows, crossbow bolts, and gun bullets however are much more unpredictable and cannot be defended against this way. Thats why you needed plate armor.



By the way many combattants would not wear full sets of armor plate, simply because they couldnt afford it, or because they would be archers and would be too restricted by plate armor, etc. In fact many peasants, when called into war, would wear a padded armor - armor made from nothing but many layers of linnen. This would still offer a certain amount of protection.



One big problem with plate armor was tournament armor, also known as full plate. This was especially protective armor only worn during tournaments. They would excessively restrict the movements of the wearer, and would be excessively heavy, to protect from any injury. Effectively tournament armor was sports equipment. This kind of armor would be completely useless on the battlefield because it would exhaust the wearer much more quickly and would make it impossible to fight effectively, due to the restrictions in movement. However many surviving pieces of armor are tournament armor and have given people very wrong ideas what plate armor was like.

What was actually worn in war is called field plate. Field plate is by necessity a compromise between protection and weight / restriction of movements. After all a knight would for example still have to be able to fight armorless peasants effectively. Field plate armor weights around about 20 to 30 kilogram.

Many higher quality ones would be tailor made. This is especially important for plate armor because, well, steel is kind of unforgiving. It can cut you pretty badly if it doesnt fit right. Thats why modern reenactors for example find it very helpful to wear a standard, a chain armor protection for the neck. Otherwise the plate armor might literally cut your throat.



There are MANY videos on Youtube about plate armor. Including for example videos of how people are getting into one. While some parts such as namely the legs can be done by oneself, other parts need help from a second person.



The two most important styles of plate armor are by the way the italian style, which spread all over europe and was asymmetrical, i.e. the left side would be heavier and better protected and more restricted than the right side, giving the wearer more options with the right side that would do the attacking, and the german style, which was symmetric and stayed more local.
#15289892
Social_Critic wrote:I just visited the royal armory and I got to look at this in detail. I think the idea was to bash the other guy carefully until he collapsed from heat stroke. At that point it was fairly easy to turn him face up and put a plastic bag over his head.



Wait wait wait.... Why would there a plastic bag in medieval times?
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]