Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Slayer_5 02-10-07, 04:57 PM	Hey, i was wondering, what historical basis is there, for breastplate being only 1 more AC then a chain shirt. From what I see, (non rules) a chain shirt stops a slashing weapon from carving up your torso, but does nothing to protect against a bludgeoning weapon, most peircing weapons, or a blow to your extremities. Breastplate, from the pictures, is a full suit of armour, albeit light, most characterized by the solid plate over your chest and back. To me, this sounds like a hell of a lot more then +1 AC. any reasoning?
fatal error 02-10-07, 05:08 PM	Because the best Medium armor was designed to be a 1 point difference from the best Light armor. I won't get into realistic effectiveness of both armors, as I'm sure that path can only lead to endless debate. The bottom line is all the armors have to fall somewhere on that scale of 1-8, and Light happens to end at 4 with a Chain Shirt, while Medium happens to end at 5 with a Breastplate. Oh alright, I'll say one thing about realistic armors. Both of these armors would have padding underneath, so Chain Shirts still help against bludgeoning weapons, or rather their padding still helps.
Tony Vargas 02-10-07, 05:38 PM	Hey, i was wondering, what historical basis is there, for breastplate being only 1 more AC then a chain shirt. any reasoning?I suppose the idea could be that, even though the breastplate is much stronger than the chain shirt, it doesn't cover any more area - and what supplemental coverage comes with the breastplate is pretty light. Thus, an attacker confronted with either a chain shirt or a breastplate would probably aim more of his blows at the limbs, which'd account for the small difference in AC bonus. Though, honestly, you could boost the medium and heavy armors a bit (just a bit) without breaking the game...
claypigeons 02-10-07, 05:47 PM	Perhaps it is only an increase of 1 AC because it is more cumbersome, making you less able to dodge and parry.
draconic_swine 02-10-07, 06:09 PM	What historical basis is there for the decisions behind the armours? Not much, if anything. The armours were pretty much designed with game balance in mind, and given more-or-less real world names. Trying to add historical accuracy or "realness" (i.e., some armours defend better against bludgeoning than others) will only be one big headache. Also, the drawings of the armour are just an artist's interpretation - I wouldn't look too much into them. They're mostly there to give someone an idea of what banded mail looks like, for instance, if they have no idea what it would look like. Most of the armour described would probably have a light suit or padding underneath and covering the limbs.
Cold Napalm 02-10-07, 06:15 PM	Umm yeah...the 3.x armor rules and realism is like oil and water. That said, chain is actually a lot better then a breastplate vs bludgeoning. The links add mass to slow the blow down and distibute the force of the blow over a wider area so there is less damage. The breastplate on the other hand gets bent.
WhiteHarness 02-10-07, 06:32 PM	That said, chain is actually a lot better then a breastplate vs bludgeoning. The links add mass to slow the blow down and distibute the force of the blow over a wider area so there is less damage. The breastplate on the other hand gets bent. This makes no sense at all. The mail shirt is flexible armour, and is subject to all the disadvantages associated with such protection--which include suffering blunt trauma from non-penetrating blows. The breastplate, though, is rigid and distributes the force of the blow over a wide area, even if it does get dented. you have it backwards: the breastplate is superior to the mailshirt in terms of resistance to blunt trauma. In fact, the breastplate is superior to the mailshirt in all conceivable ways, except maybe for flexibility. I know which one I'd prefer to trust my life to in a low-tech combat situation...
Cold Napalm 02-10-07, 06:50 PM	Well since SCA combat is all blunt practice weapons , I can tell you that when you get hit with a mass weapon (think maces and axes that have almost all the weight behind the hit area), the chain does in fact work as a better armor then a breastplate. The chainmail MOVES. Movement uses up energy. Energy that was meant to hurt YOU. Think of chainail as having water next to your skin for protection. When the mass hits, the surfacte tenstion is broken and the fluid movement absorbs the shock. This is how chainmail works against blunt objects...although to a less degree as...well it's not a liquid. A breastplate is like having a piece of ice. If the tension isn't broken, NOTHING gets through (i.e. sword blows), but if the force gets through that tension point, ALL the left over energy hits you. Guess what, most mass weapons are good at shoving lots and lots of energy to a small area. Of course in real life, you usually wore padding under chain under a breastplate so you got ALL the benefits.
Slayer_5 02-10-07, 07:08 PM	Dude, I do SCA combat. Chainmail is for decoration. The layers and layers of padding we wear underneath is what stops blunt blows. And at work, I wear armour that could best be described as "Articulated breastplate", and I have been hit and kicked, and it's distribution of force over a wide area is what saved me. Had it been flexible like chain, I would have cracked ribs.
Cold Napalm 02-10-07, 07:17 PM	well I'm guessing your kingdoms chainmail is generally light gauge and non riveted PoS. Since actual period mail was all riveted and of a fairly heavy gauge, it is not just decoration and it will definately absorbs a kick no problem. If the mail in your kingdom has problems absorbing a kick, it's not REAL chainmail. As for a breatplate absorbing a kick...well you realize that a flanged mace exerts about 1000-2000 times the force per square inch that a kick does(based on how strong a person kicks). A person isn't gonna kick harder then a sword hit so why yes a kick does does not infact hit harder then a sword...much less an axe or mace. Sorry, try again.
runestar 02-10-07, 09:59 PM	They had to make the various types of armour roughly equivalent to one another, so that no one armour was much obviously superior to the other. A breastplate is better for a character with dex of 16 or lower, but penalises you in the form of lower speed and higher ACP. But ultimately, it gives the same AC bonus as a chainshirt (armour bonus + max dex = 8 total) I think it is more of a game balance issue than anything else.:)
Vrellum 02-11-07, 12:42 AM	As has been said, the goal of the designers was to balance armors so that there would not be any favorites. I think they didn't make heavy and medium armors good enough when compared to light armor, but that is my opinion. So there isn't any real world justification for it, anymore than there is real world justification for fireball capping out at 10d6 damage.
Norsesmithy 02-11-07, 12:51 AM	Irreguardless, Plate style armour should distribute the blow fom a concussive weapon better, and if it doesn't it means that your padding is done wrong. Besides, I have a sneaking supicion that Slayer 5 works with large animals, which kick harder than a human can move a flanged mace. I know that the Rodeo workers where I live often wear poly and steel plate style armours under their costumes.
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 12:34 AM	well I'm guessing your kingdoms chainmail is generally light gauge and non riveted PoS. Since actual period mail was all riveted and of a fairly heavy gauge, Here's where you're wrong. Most historical mail was much, much lighter than modern reproduction stuff; even the decent-quality riveted mail available these days is usually on the large, heavy end of what was used historically. Talk to Erik Schmid--he'll set you straight. What evidence do you have that "actual period mail" (sic) was "of a fairly heavy gauge?" http://webpages.charter.net/erikdschmid/ By way of example, the mail shirt designated #A2 in the Wallace Collection has links 0.99mm (that's a little thinner than 18ga) in thickness, and 10.3mm in outside diameter; hardly what I'd term "of a fairly heavy gauge." Breastplates don't dent as easily as you seem to think. If yours does, then I question its quality. Mine seldom dents at all, even when a big guy hits it. Norsesmithy is right: the rigid steel breastplate will spread the force of the impact far, far better than the flexible mail will. You claim that the mail flexing as it's struck absorbs energy--what do you think the steel plate denting is doing? That's absorbing energy, too, and doing a much more efficient job of it than the mail will.
TheCobra 02-12-07, 12:44 AM	From what I see, (non rules) a chain shirt stops a slashing weapon from carving up your torso, but does nothing to protect against a bludgeoning weapon, most peircing weapons, or a blow to your extremities. A good shirt of mail should be a solid defense against both cuts and thrusts. Heavy arrows from powerful bows would be able to pierce it, but only at fairly close range. If worn with padding, as mail always was, it'd also provide protection against blunt trauma. Of course, a light shirt of mail with less padding wouldn't offer as good protection. And a breastplate of equal quality would be a better defense. Still, mail is nothing to laugh at.
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 01:12 AM	Nobody's saying that mail wasn't good--only that a breastplate was better at protecting its wearer from all types of trauma regularly encountered on a medieval or renaissance battlefield.
BrazilRascal 02-12-07, 01:24 AM	Must have something to do with the unwritten "All medium armor must be shamefully bad, unless it's heavy armor turned medium by Mithril" rule . They just get a kick out of making characters lose speed over 1 AC point.
TheCobra 02-12-07, 01:26 AM	I really don't think the relative protective value of mail versus plate is that far off in D&D. I mean, the armor bonus ranges from 1 to 8. That's not much to work with. I do think a mail shirt would have a few advantages over a breastplate, assuming equal quality. Comfort and flexibility are the main ones. Mail is also easier to conceal under clothes. Of course, a light brigandine should have roughly the same pluses.
Nathreet 02-12-07, 01:31 AM	The sum of armor AC bonus and max dex bonus to AC are equal for both of them. Thus one character with a high dex will wear a chain shirt and another with a low dex will wear the breastplate. And a chain shirt is light armor, etc. That way characters won't always pick one over the other and everybody won't look the same. That's the real reason.
Zobdek 02-12-07, 01:42 AM	Nobody's saying that mail wasn't good--only that a breastplate was better at protecting its wearer from all types of trauma regularly encountered on a medieval or renaissance battlefield. I thought that mail was much better at protecting against piercing attacks, I'm pretty sure they wore it underneath Full Plate and other heavy armors just in the odd event that some form of piercing attack actually made it through the over armor. Sheets of metal are painfully inadequate at protecting against piercing attacks as the pressure is so concentrated that the metal gives little protection. The chain-links on the other hand are able to disperse the pressure from such a blow in a much better manner. Or are you saying that piercing attacks were not common on the medieval or renaissance battlefield? Breastplate was undeniably better at protecting against bludgeoning and slashing though.
TheCobra 02-12-07, 01:51 AM	I'm pretty sure they wore it underneath Full Plate and other heavy armors just in the odd event that some form of piercing attack actually made it through the over armor. They did wear mail under plate during the transitional period, yes. However, such kits were heavy and bulky. As plate armor evolved, mail moved to only over the parts unprotected by plate. Quality plate armor was an extremely good defense against piercing attacks.
Norsesmithy 02-12-07, 01:56 AM	Hardened armor plates are superior to mail against peicing attacks. The curvature of the plate makes it hard for the tip of a peicing weapon to gain purchase, and even if the arrow, spear, what have you, does gain purchase, it is generally resisted, often breaking the shaft in the process. If the weapon manages to penetrate the steel, the friction, and the act of penetration, plus the deformation of the steel absorb much of its energy, making it so that gambeson or jack beneath it does defeat the arrow, spear, what have you. Not to say that Mail isn't very effective against peircing weapons, it is, but all evidence points to plate being better.
Zobdek 02-12-07, 01:57 AM	They did wear mail under plate during the transitional period, yes. However, such kits were heavy and bulky. As plate armor evolved, mail moved to only over the parts unprotected by plate. Quality plate armor was an extremely good defense against piercing attacks. Ok then I was at least partially correct, also wouldn't quality plate armor be referring to masterwork? Wouldn't the not-so-good stuff offer considerably less protection?
TheCobra 02-12-07, 02:03 AM	Not to say that Mail isn't very effective against peircing weapons, it is, but all evidence points to plate being better. I agree, assuming the mail and plate in question are of roughly the same quality. Wouldn't the not-so-good stuff offer considerably less protection? Indeed. All plate was not created equal. This is why some sources and tests have plate armor pierced fairly easily, while others describe it as a nigh-perfect defense against everything except bullets.
thefred 02-12-07, 02:11 AM	i only read about the first half of this, but i would have to say to any of you that remember systems that actually dealt with things like this to go get your old rock, or whatever you used to hit yourself in the head with when using rules like this (i used books, because when thinking/arguing about this sort of thing i would always have one in my hand)
Zobdek 02-12-07, 02:14 AM	while others describe it as a nigh-perfect defense against everything except bullets. HAH!! I saw this guy who had chainmail that he claimed could stop a bullet from 30ft away! (It however was not welded/riveted/whatever you call it, so the validity of this statement was basically nill :P)
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 04:27 AM	If mail were a superior defense against "piercing" attacks, then why was plate armour adopted so readily in the wake of the arrival of the longbow on the military scene in the 14th century? The smooth, hard surface of steel plates sheds pointed missiles harmlessly, while those same missiles might catch in the rough surface of mail and punch right through. Mail survived into the age of plate only as a secondary defense, to defend the body areas that plates couldn't cover as easily due to the body's movement requirements--the armpits, groin, inside of the elbow, etc. As to it being more comfortable than plate, I might disagree. A well-fitted cuirass is much more comfortable than a mail shirt. Mail hangs from your shoulders, and will begin to fatigue you fairly soon, even if tightly belted. The weight of a custom made cuirass, tightly buckled on, will sit more on the waist, which is far less tiring. The sort made in two pieces, with a plackart overlapping the upper portion and articulated on a strap or rivet, will even allow you to bend almost as easily as a mailshirt will. If I had to wear one all day, I'd pick the cuirass over the mail in a heartbeat.
Vahenir 02-12-07, 04:41 AM	Piercing Attacks: This depends on the nature of the weapon. Unlike in D&D, real 'piercing' damage comes in different forms, and of different severities. A rondel, for instance, can be slammed through mail and the padding beneath, if you can apply enough force. It will not, however, go through plate. The spike on an axe or hammer, on the other hand, is going to go through plate or mail. Neither armour is going to be 'better' at protecting against that kind of attack. Bludgeoning Attacks: Likewise. But pound for pound, plate armour is going to protect better. Mail may help diffuse the force of the blow, but the simple fact of the matter is that while it's diffusing, it's also allowing the weapon to continue on its path. It doesn't -stop- the weapon, because it's flexible. That's also why even cutting attacks can cause serious blunt-force trauma to the man under the mail. Flexible armour has its limitations. Arrows: So overplayed. Arrows don't readily slice through mail. They don't readily slice through plate, either. By the time arrows -could- reliably get through mail (a late development known as the bodkin arrowhead), mail had essentially been abandoned for better armour by those that could afford it. Arrows could -never- reliably penetrate plate armour, even at close range. Also, the arrival of the longbow had nothing to do with the adoption of plate armour. Plate armour had begun to surface WELL before that, and was largely held back by the metallurgy of the time. As metallurgy got better, armour got better. Indeed, longbows would not make themselves known in history until about 60-70 years after plate armour had begun to show itself in greater and greater amounts.
Watchman 02-12-07, 08:09 AM	I've read people have actually tested the arrow-resistance of certain types of armour. Roman types in this case; mail, unsurprisingly, was the weakest, scale better, and it turned out the pretty strong "Hunnic" composite bow couldn't get an arrow through a lorica segmentata from further than something like seven meters. Iron sheets are tough. As a side note, I bluntly refuse to believe dedicated armour-piercing arrowheads à la the "bodkin" were any sort of late developement. People have been shooting arrows at armoured men and animals since Late Bronze Age, and you can bet the proverbial farm on them having gotten quite creative in the good old offense-defence arms race. Doubly so as arrowheads designed specifically for penetrative power aren't exactly uncommon archeological finds.
Vahenir 02-12-07, 08:25 AM	As a side note, I bluntly refuse to believe dedicated armour-piercing arrowheads à la the "bodkin" were any sort of late developement. People have been shooting arrows at armoured men and animals since Late Bronze Age, and you can bet the proverbial farm on them having gotten quite creative in the good old offense-defence arms race. Doubly so as arrowheads designed specifically for penetrative power aren't exactly uncommon archeological finds. I can't recall any source which notes bodkins (or similar and effective arrowheads) as having existed prior to the early 14th century, possibly late 13th. 'Course, in more modern history there was a fair period between kevlar and armour-piercing rounds in strong circulation. It's not unreasonable for the medieval world to be similar, even slower, in processing and promulgating the effectiveness of a given type of arrowhead.
TheCobra 02-12-07, 01:12 PM	HAH!! I saw this guy who had chainmail that he claimed could stop a bullet from 30ft away! Decent mail might be able to stop a weak handgun round. I think Williams tested bullets against mail and padding, and concluded that a bullet needed around 400 J to penetrate. If mail were a superior defense against "piercing" attacks, then why was plate armour adopted so readily in the wake of the arrival of the longbow on the military scene in the 14th century? Eh, longbows had been in military use well before the 14th century. Maybe there were more good archers used on the field during that time, but the longbow was nothing new. I agree that good plate is better at stopping piercing attacks, but I think people adopted plate in the 14th century because that's when plate armor became available. Changes in technology and production were the driving force behind it, not the use of the longbow. Mail survived into the age of plate only as a secondary defense, to defend the body areas that plates couldn't cover as easily due to the body's movement requirements--the armpits, groin, inside of the elbow, etc. That's not entirely true. People still paid good money for mail shirts and such after the 15th century. Pikemen and archers often wore mail. Men fenced in shirts of mail. If I had to wear one all day, I'd pick the cuirass over the mail in a heartbeat. Maybe. I can't think of examples of people picking mail shirts over breastplates for comfort, though they certainly did pick brigandines over breastplates for that purpose. Brigs were probably the most comfortable. The spike on an axe or hammer, on the other hand, is going to go through plate or mail. Neither armour is going to be 'better' at protecting against that kind of attack. I don't agree. I think plate armor would be better. Putting a spike through a good breastplate or helmet isn't easy. If the angle is off at all, the spike will just slide.
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 01:29 PM	I do not share your view that the longbow had no effect on the development of plate armour and that metallurgical technology was the sole driving factor in its adoption. I've read Williams, too. Metallurgy was but one factor among many. I do not think it is a coincidence that the science of plate armour advanced rapidly during the period of English military primacy in the Hundred Years War. I'm not saying that the longbow was the primary influence on the development of armour; I'm saying that plate wouldn't have been adopted if it hadn't been a better defense against piercing attacks--longbow, crossbow, whatever. Those technological advances wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a reason for people to try out some innovation. That reason was that mail was found to be insufficient protection against the weapons of the day, which included a great variety of point instruments. While there are examples of early plate armour that predate the advent of the English longbow, I do feel that it was the introduction of increasingly powerful missile weapons that were the catalyst that precipitated the search for something more resistant than mail to defend the body. Recall that the Second Lateran Council in 1139 is said to have banned the use of crossbows in war between Christians. Clearly, the things were perceived as a threat to social order, and we may assume that this was precisely because they were able to penetrate the armour of the day with at least enough frequency to cause widespread alarm. Furthermore, the Lateran Council's decision could be interpreted as applying to bows as well. The spike on an axe or hammer, on the other hand, is going to go through plate or mail. Neither armour is going to be 'better' at protecting against that kind of attack. Once again, I disagree. The plate is indeed going to be better at protecting you from this sort of weapon. Merely having a weapon that is capable of penetrating the armour doesn't guarantee automatic penetration of the armour and infliction of a crippling wound. If I had to be struck by one of these weapons, I'd much rather have plate on me. It's much more likely to defeat the weapon than the mail is.
megeddo 02-12-07, 01:43 PM	Cold Napalm gets a gold star for the best thread-hijack today. ~thumbs up~ My limited knowledge based on a friend who actually fabricates chain and plate armor, goes and fights regularly in the Battle of Hastings, and who has some armor peices he has created demonstrated in museums and other art collector galleries, because he maintains as close a historical accuracy as possible, is that chain mail was the most widely used armor during the medieval and later parts of our history. It absorbed blunt blows sure, but not as well as plate did. It deflected slicing sword blows which was its primary function, but against piercing chain mail was very very limited in its protection. So arrows and spears, and picks were the bane of any chain wearer. Also you didn't see too many people in plate. That kind of armor was reserved for the knights, who also rarely ever wore it, and those knights who were in plate rode heavy horses, and acted as the tanks on the battlefield. My own personal experience was, I wore some of his chain mail, just to get a feel. And my is it heavy heavy stuff. The idiot then decided to hit me with one of this swords, and he hit me hard right across the chest. The heavy padding protected me considerably, and the chain didn't even break apart under the slice. It hurt like a *****, but in a combat situation I would have only been mildly injured. Granted he then used a longsword how its suppose to be used, and he pierced me lightly in the upper chest, to simply demonstrate the armor's weakness... he broke apart several of the links and left me rubbing my chest in agony. Yah I am a masochist. He then used a hammer, like an actual tool hammer. He hit me not even a 1/2 as hard as he did the sword and it hurt... alot and left a painful bruise. Sadly I couldn't try getting hit with any of the plate he had in his workshop, because well... hehe I guess it takes a long time to make and is very painstaking. Also the suit of mail I was working on had holes everywhere so it was most likely his practice set. I don't know, I never asked.
Moribund 02-12-07, 02:28 PM	Well it seems as if there are some knowledgeable people here. So what's the verdict? Chain shirt should be medium armor if breastplate is, or should the chain shirt's armor bonus be less?
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 02:38 PM	If anything, armour bonuses should be increased across the board, not reduced. Armour worked better in reality than D&D credits it.
Pangeon 02-12-07, 03:09 PM	http://www.errantstory.com/comics/es20060807.jpg Seriously though, breastplate could stand to be a little better. Make it +6, and bingo! problem solved.
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-12-07, 03:59 PM	Besides, I have a sneaking supicion that Slayer 5 works with large animals, which kick harder than a human can move a flanged mace. I know that the Rodeo workers where I live often wear poly and steel plate style armours under their costumes. A flanged mace takes advantage of the concept of a lever and simple momentum laws. Simple physics, really.
capeMyrmidon 02-12-07, 04:56 PM	first thing is : good the less cat girls there are in the world the better it is for us all. other thing plate and a breastplate are different, a breast plate is a hefty gauge piece of bronze or steel that covers your vitals. plate i think of full plate consiting of full body protection. plate was make in different thicknesses so the wearer could move the thickest being the breast plate. the longbow at 80 pounds of resitance could easily pierce the thiner plates on the arms and legs of knights' full plate, but bounced of the heavier areas. this left the knights lying in the mud in heavy armour without the use of a leg or arm bleeding to death; after the battle the archers would walk by and cut the throughts of the disabled knights
Zobdek 02-12-07, 05:58 PM	http://www.errantstory.com/comics/es20060807.jpg Seriously though, breastplate could stand to be a little better. Make it +6, and bingo! problem solved. Aww who cares about catgirls anyways... Slightly more on topic, I heard that if you happened to be knocked over while wearing full plate it was basically impossible to get back up (not actually sustaining injury just simply falling over). Is this true? Or at least somewhat true. PS. I once saw a Katana slice through a suit of full plate mail, twelve great swords, 20 feet of steel and a dead kitten. But it broke when it got to the chainmail... what now! :D
Watchman 02-12-07, 06:14 PM	You need to find a better accounts of Agincourt to read, methinks. The French men-at-arms there turned into clumsy turtles due to sheer exhaustion owing to having just trekked over something like a kilometer of churned-up muddy field in full kit. The less than solid footing obviously didn't help such heavily equipped combatants one bit, and pesky enemies stomping on your head never made getting up easy for anyone anyway. I can't recall any source which notes bodkins (or similar and effective arrowheads) as having existed prior to the early 14th century, possibly late 13th.Then you need to read more. The chariot warriors of Late Bronze Age were already shooting heavy arrows specifically designed to punch through the period bronze-scale armour at each other. Pretty much everyone who used bows for warfare and had to deal with armour shortly developed suitable arrows and -heads for the job. Those short on original ideas could pretty much just rip off suitable spearhead designs for a good start, or copy-paste their neighbours' stuff. 'Course, in more modern history there was a fair period between kevlar and armour-piercing rounds in strong circulation. It's not unreasonable for the medieval world to be similar, even slower, in processing and promulgating the effectiveness of a given type of arrowhead.Just for the record, enterprising people were occasionally loading their muskets and pistols with steel balls for better penetration already in the Early Modern period. And snipers in the World Wars were issued special armour-piercing rounds to pierce steel shields machine-guns and enemy snipers occasionally tried to hide in. Modern military small-arms are more or less capable of penetrating most reasonable kevlar defenses anyway, and certainly the earlier ones. Such body-armour only started proliferating in the civilian sphere fairly late, which created a demand for pistol-calibre penetrators. Rifle rounds AFAIK could cope with some design changes to improve penetration qualities, which by what I've read is one of the reasons why American soldiers now incessantly whine about the lack of stopping power in the M-16... Dedicated rifle-calibre penetrators are scary. They're designed to make holes in both APCs and the guys inside... Anyway, don't sell short them ancient bowyers. People went around with different arrows to use against people and animals for example - the former had their "cutting edges" at right angles relative to the string for example, in order to slip between the ribs; the latter parallel, to account for the different angle of ribs the horizontal posture gives animals... Folks who put such levels of obsessive attention to detail to their arrow designs aren't going to slip up on experimenting on armour-piercing qualities either. Something which pretty much served the purpose of the overly-famous "bodkin" head has in one form or another been around for a long long time around the world (one recalls also that different types of armour necessitate different arrowheads); in European context dedicated "penetrator" heads have been excavated from Viking battle sites for example, and I'm not even going to get started on Central Asia and Middle East, archery-crazy regions that also invented the fully armoured horseman... It only becomes so noticeable in the 1300s because the English began employing massed longbowmen as a central part of their military system then. Once again, I disagree. The plate is indeed going to be better at protecting you from this sort of weapon. Merely having a weapon that is capable of penetrating the armour doesn't guarantee automatic penetration of the armour and infliction of a crippling wound. If I had to be struck by one of these weapons, I'd much rather have plate on me. It's much more likely to defeat the weapon than the mail is.This sounds about right. If nothing else then punching through a solid steel plate is going to sap the blow's energy something fierce and make achieving a meaningful wound that much more difficult. Moreover, the solid plate is a smooth hard surface - if the blow doesn't come about straight on, it'll more or less glance off. Mail by contrast provides the pointy stuff with something of a ready-made hole to "bite" in; they'll just have to be able to burst enough of the links around the impact point for proper penetration. As for the plate armour, European war gear was getting noticeably heavier around that period in any case. This wasn't really a new developement - the armour level of the Early Middle Ages was actually pretty low compared to Late Roman and early Migration Period times, and contemporary war gear worn in the East. By the mid-1300s European armourers were already busily copying and further developing promising ideas picked up from the Muslims and Byzantines during the Crusades, partly due to the necessity of more complete defenses in the Outremer and partly due to general improvements in overall economic situation and equipement levels. Knights weren't the only ones whose war gear was improving after all; humbler troops were also becoming increasingly better armed and sophisticated, and thus dangerous, combatants, and there was of course always the usual arms race amongst the warrior elite itself. By the time a fortuitious breakthrough in metallurgical techniques allowed the construction of decent solid-plate armour the defensive gear of European elite troops was already around cataphract levels and virtually immune to most ranged weapons short of powerful crossbows and composite bows with dedicated "penetrator" arrows, and decently-equipped common troops widely used kits that made the Roman infantry of old look like a bunch of pansies in shirts. I don't think plate armour was particularly revolutionary in some fashion. All it really did was exchange encumberance for cost as far as the full harnesses went, when it comes down to that. A coat-of-plates over mail ought to have given at least as much overall protection as a solid steel breastplate for example - but the combination was rather heavier and more cumbersome. On the other hand, full plate was always mind-bogglingly expensive even as heavy armour went... The point is anyway that if they were willing to cough up the dough and deal with the encumberance elite combatants didn't need access to full plate to be armoured to the point of near invulnerability and requiring specialized weaponry to reliably hurt; the cataphracts of Antiquity had already achieved that. The refinement of the technology gave lesser troops access to strong and light breastplates and separate pieces for spot protection at reasonable prices however, which can presumably be regarded as very militarily useful if not particularly world-changing.
WhiteHarness 02-12-07, 09:51 PM	Slightly more on topic, I heard that if you happened to be knocked over while wearing full plate it was basically impossible to get back up (not actually sustaining injury just simply falling over). Is this true? Or at least somewhat true. Didn't I already post this video once on another thread? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg My harness is slightly heavier than the PHB's given weight for standard plate armour. Note that not only can I get up if I fall down, I can turn cartwheels in it.
Onikani 02-12-07, 10:02 PM	jsut get a mithril breastplate and stop worrying about it. :)
Norsesmithy 02-12-07, 10:20 PM	A flanged mace takes advantage of the concept of a lever and simple momentum laws. Simple physics, really. Irregardless, a bull can kick you harder than is humanly possible with any melee weapon. They can splinter 6x6 wooden beams with one blow, and outweigh many small cars. Simple physics necessitates that the 600 lbs of muscle behind a bull's one leg can exert more force on a four foot lever (the bull's leg) than the maybe 70 lbs of muscle any man can get behind a two handed blow with 4 or 5 foot lever (human arm with flanged mace). You just cannot hope to beat them when it comes to raw force exerted. Your only advantage is better aim. Humans are comparatively weak compaired to almost every animal.
Vrellum 02-12-07, 10:41 PM	Anyway, don't sell short them ancient bowyers. People went around with different arrows to use against people and animals for example - the former had their "cutting edges" at right angles relative to the string for example, in order to slip between the ribs; the latter parallel, to account for the different angle of ribs the horizontal posture gives animals... Folks who put such levels of obsessive attention to detail to their arrow designs aren't going to slip up on experimenting on armour-piercing qualities either. I've heard this claim before, but I doubt it to be true. Arrows, accurate ones atleast, rotate while in flight. So it wouldn't be possible to position the arrow head for the effect you are describing. As to the OP, I would make medium and heavy armor better. They get more penalties and require feats to use, so it stands to reason they should offer better protection. On a side note, I would change mithril so it allowed you to make more protective armor (increase the AC by 1). As justification the fluff could be since it is lighter it allows you to make thicker and stronger plates/links. I really don't like how it allows classes meant to have armor restrictions bypass the restriction (barbarians in mithril full plate, rangers in breast plate, etc.)
TheCobra 02-13-07, 09:49 AM	I do feel that it was the introduction of increasingly powerful missile weapons that were the catalyst that precipitated the search for something more resistant than mail to defend the body. But there's little evidence that bows got more powerful in the 14th century. They've found older bows that draw over a hundred pounds. Perhaps powerful bows were used in greater numbers in this period, though. Crossbows could have encouraged people to get better armor, but they seemed to have been able to pierce mail well before the widespread development of plate armor. The French men-at-arms there turned into clumsy turtles due to sheer exhaustion owing to having just trekked over something like a kilometer of churned-up muddy field in full kit. The less than solid footing obviously didn't help such heavily equipped combatants one bit, and pesky enemies stomping on your head never made getting up easy for anyone anyway. Yes, though there's some evidence the French did wear excessively heavy and bulky armor around the time of Agincourt. Period sources say some of the French knights wore full coats of mail under their plate, and another source specifically cites overly heavy armor as a cause of defeat.
WhiteHarness 02-13-07, 03:40 PM	I'm not aware of that source. Please, Cobra, share this source that supposedly attributes the French defeat to "overly heavy armour."
TheCobra 02-13-07, 04:57 PM	I'll tell you another thing - You equip yourselves with armor that is too heavy, So that when you are fully armed, You'll be defeated in a short while... It's from the author of L'Apparicion Maistre Jehan de Meun, quoted in Strickland, The Great Warbow. I don't think it's about the battle of Agincourt itself, but it's from the same period. Other sources on the battle note how the French were hindered by the weight of their armor, but you could say that was only because of the specific conditions of the battle (weather, etc). That's certainly the main reason for it, but I think some of them really might have been wearing overly heavy armor. A full coat of mail along with lots of plate would weight a ton.
Watchman 02-13-07, 05:03 PM	There was nothing "overly heavy" about the armament of the French men-at-arms as such; partial plate or coat-of-plates stacked over full mail was the norm for well-equipped warriors to wear into heavy combat at the time, and that regardless of whether they fought on foot or mounted. (Men-at-arms were the "universal soldiers" of the time, expected to have the training and equipement for heavy shock duty as both infantry and cavalry as the situation demanded. As a side note, "knight" and "man-at-arms" aren't directly interchangeable terms; all ranking Knights were certainly men-at-arms, but not even close to every soldier who qualified as man-at-arms was ranked a Knight.) And that wasn't even as heavy as it could get either; well-armoured Middle Eastern cavalrymen around the same period could wear two full mail hauberks and a lamellar corselet over those, even for combat on foot... Sure you weren't going to be terribly fast or agile in that kind of loadout, but really, the sheer level of comparative invulnerability was well worth it for slugging matches against equally heavily armed enemy heavies, and for surviving massed incoming missile fire. As said, there was nothing as such excessively heavy about the armament of the French MAAs at Agincourt. Indeed one wonders where exactly they would supposedly have conjured "excessively heavy and bulky" armour from just for the occasion, since their normal gear doesn't merit the designation. The armour was only excessively heavy for the terrain - a vast stretch of muddy field churned up by the horses of the initial (and repulsed) cavalry attacks on the wings, which the main mob of French heavies on foot had to cross under constant missile fire to reach the waiting English line. Of course their armour dragged them down in those conditions and tired them out right quick, so that by the time they reached the waiting line of well-rested English MAAs they were stone dead tired. Still, sheer numbers would probably have allowed them to roll over their colleagues eventually. But then the pesky longbowmen on the wings, similarly well-rested save for the wear of constant shooting, unengaged and probably also by that point running out of ammo, decided to play light infantry in a double envelopement maneuver. Now, head on the MAAs would have torn the archers to shreds even with all the disadvantages they had by that point; the longbowmen didn't have either the training or the war gear to squarely fight the best shock infantry in European armies of the time. But on the flanks of the tired and confused French colums they could pick off individual targets, in their light equipement run rings around their opponents struggling in the increasingly churned-up mud and generally mob their opponents with virtual impunity. Yet without their heavy armour the French heavies wouldn't have gotten through the arrow-storm alive in the first place. The issue wasn't really the war gear on either side; it was, yet again, sheer organizational and command-and-control issues in the still quite feudal French military system that tended to turn numerical superiority into a liablity and enabled the English to time and again largely dictate the terms of the battle. The French always tended to do rather better in smaller-scale encounters and skirmishes, where capable commanders could exercise real control over their troops and employ real tactics without social precedence getting in the way, for the entire Hundred Year' War save for the final phase when the King was able to carry out a thorough military reorganization. After which the English were thrown out of the Continent inside ten years or thereabouts. But there's little evidence that bows got more powerful in the 14th century. They've found older bows that draw over a hundred pounds. Perhaps powerful bows were used in greater numbers in this period, though. Crossbows could have encouraged people to get better armor, but they seemed to have been able to pierce mail well before the widespread development of plate armor.The "English" longbow was a device that had been used by forest-dweller all over Eurasia, and quite likely beyond, since the damn Stone Age, and would remain use long after it was abandoned as a military weapon system. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Welsh had originally picked it up from the Vikings, who certainly used it (if not in a very central role in warfare); far as I know the archery tradition in the British Isles prior to those times was pretty much limited to the composite bows of the Romans... Anyway, European warfare was in a flux around that time. The Papal ban on crossbows (which pretty much nobody paid any heed) was pretty much the direct result of the invention of the horn-stave crossbow which was rather more powerful than the older wood-stave type (what role experience of Eastern composite bows played in its developement is still a question mark). The communal militia infantry of the Northern Italian city-states in particular was to make good use out of it. The Crusades exposed the Europeans to sophisticated military traditions making use of highly advanced armouring and archery techniques, and anyone fighting in the Outremer had to adapt; returning Crusaders, merchants etc. of course then brought influences back with them (the Italians were starting to copy Egyptian leather-armour techniques by the early-mid 1200s if not earlier, and the later coat-of-plates armour may have grown out of that). One has to keep in mind Christian Europe was in constant contact with foreign military traditions all along its outer edges - diverse Muslims in the Iberian peninsula, all around the Mediterranean and particularly in the Middle East, the Byzantine traditions in the Balkans and Asia Minor, the Central and Eastern European pagans and eventually beyond them the Orthodox Russians, plus assorted steppe nomads in both Middle East and Eastern Europe. Moreover warfare on the subcontinent itself was endemic, and as for various reasons advantages over your enemies weren't usually achievable through changing tactics and so on they had to be sought via raw technological developements. All of which was buoyed by a long period of economic and demographic growth and slowly but surely increasing sophistication in matters both adminstrative and mercantile.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 05:21 PM	There was nothing "overly heavy" about the armament of the French men-at-arms as such; partial plate or coat-of-plates stacked over full mail was the norm for well-equipped warriors to wear into heavy combat at the time, and that regardless of whether they fought on foot or mounted. And many armor scholars, including Alan Williams, note that transitional harnesses were heavy and bulky. I suggest you look at the number of sources stressing the weight of French armor at Agincourt. Strickland puts these sources together in The Great Warbow. Sure you weren't going to be terribly fast or agile in that kind of loadout, but really, the sheer level of comparative invulnerability was well worth it for slugging matches against equally heavily armed enemy heavies, and for surviving massed incoming missile fire. Then why the shift to lighter armor (full plate without the mail underneath) later in the 15th-century? Yet without their heavy armour the French heavies wouldn't have gotten through the arrow-storm alive in the first place. Good plate armor alone is enough for surviving a storm of arrows. Having a heavy coat of mail underneath isn't very useful.
Watchman 02-13-07, 05:38 PM	And many armor scholars, including Alan Williams, note that transitional harnesses were heavy and bulky.Did I ever claim different ? Didn't keep everyone and their dog who could afford it from fighting in them though. Then why the shift to lighter armor (full plate without the mail underneath) later in the 15th-century? Because fully developed tempered-steel plate gave pretty much comparable protection for less weight and encumberance. I seem to recall mentioning something about this earlier in the thread. You're incidentally rather mistaken about the bolded part. Mail formed a part of many a harness for a long long time afterwards, particularly as limb protection (armpits, the back of the knee and the inside of the elbow region in particular being a bear to armour otherwise). Soldiers on budget, or after flexibility in harness parts, would also often opt for a decent light breastplate backed up with mail instead of a thicker, heavier plate body defense - and conversely with full plate armours over time there developed the practice of attaching a second plate, known as "plackart", over the breastplate for extra protection, particularly against firearms. Good plate armor alone is enough for surviving a storm of arrows. Having a heavy coat of mail underneath isn't very useful.Agincourt was before fully developed plate was affordable to the rank-and-file of men-at-arms (or even developed; haven't checked the exact chronology as of late). Duh. The second sentence is also quite incorrect, as should be glaringly obvious with plain common sense - if something manages to penetrate the outer plate, it'll obviously still have to get through the mail underneath which is anything but a given when one considers how much of the impact energy has already been expended.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 05:46 PM	You're incidentally rather mistaken about the bolded part. No, I'm not. I know quite well that mail bits remained with the white harness. Full coats of mail, reaching down to the knees and very heavy, did not. The second sentence is also quite incorrect, as should be glaringly obvious with plain common sense No, it isn't. Later plate, at least, provided more than enough defense against arrows. If the arrows can't pierce the plate, having mail underneath it doesn't matter.
Watchman 02-13-07, 06:01 PM	Full coats of mail, reaching down to the knees and very heavy, did not.Depends on the locale and what exactly one counts as "plate armour" for the purpose of the discussion really. No, it isn't. Later plate, at least, provided more than enough defense against arrows. If the arrows can't pierce the plate, having mail underneath it doesn't matter.People didn't load up on armour solely against arrows you know. Besides, the limbs were where the plates were the thinnest (to reduce weight). And if additional protection there was considered desirable for one reason or another, which was easier - to wear mail underneath or go get an entirely new set of leg defenses ? Recall that armour was often called to serve in diverse roles in different overall configurations. Appreciation of this fact, and the great expense of individual full plate harnesses, eventually led to the developement of what the English called a garnet - a modular suit of full plate which by adding and removing individual pieces of the whole set could be made up equally for different tournament events and battlefield duties ranging from heavy lancer work to light-cavalry skirmishing; the lighter configurations tended to presuppose the employement of mail at least for limb defense and optionally also as a lighter alternative to the full plackart.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 06:16 PM	People didn't load up on armour solely against arrows you know. Certainly not, but once plate armor improved, men stopped layering mail and plate together as a torso defense. While doing this may have been worthwhile earlier, all the evidence suggests that the transitional harness was more cumbersome than later plate armor, and yet no more protective.
Watchman 02-13-07, 06:27 PM	I'm starting to wonder what the point of the argument is, you know.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 06:33 PM	It's just an example of how defensive people have gotten about armor weight. Despite what primary sources say about armor sometimes being too heavy, the idea is rejected out of hand.
Watchman 02-13-07, 06:40 PM	What I reject out of hand and categorically is the idea it was "too heavy" in general. What I can accept is that it was too heavy for the conditions the French MAAs faced at Agincourt, albeit with the caveat that without suche defenses they might as well have gone home since otherwise they'd been in for a very unpleasant and ham-fisted acupuncture treatment. Case in point is that the English MAAs on the other side of the same field were wearing functionally identical equipement. Too heavy ? Note also that there are recorded instances of Roman legionaires being in trouble in marshy terrain against lighter-equipped foes, and what they had was just the lorica hamata mail coat, helmet and shield plus weapons - "too heavy" is rather situation-dependent.
Norsesmithy 02-13-07, 06:48 PM	Later plate, at least, provided more than enough defense against arrows. If the arrows can't pierce the plate, having mail underneath it doesn't matter. I havent seen you acknowledge it yet, so I will repeat, The French at Agincourt could not wear plate, because the Articulated Harness that was so popular amoung nobility hadn't been invented yet. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of the French were not killed by arrows, but instead were bludgeoned to death by the hammers the archers carried to help drive the stakes that they used as a defensive barrier. Had they decided to take a breather 60 to 70 yards out from the English lines, they might well have fared better. Their armor seems to have been good enough to do this.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 06:52 PM	Case in point is that the English MAAs on the other side of the same field were wearing functionally identical equipement. It seems that they were wearing about the same gear, sure, but do we have any sources noting the weight of English armor? Not that I can think of. On the other hand, you certainly could argue that the reason these sources noted the weight of French armour at Agincourt is because of the course the battle took. I do think the transitional harness tended to be unpleasantly heavy and bulky. Both earlier full mail and later full plate with mail bits seem significantly less cumbersome. I havent seen you acknowledge it yet, so I will repeat, The French at Agincourt could not wear plate, because the Articulated Harness that was so popular amoung nobility hadn't been invented yet. My understanding is that it had been, though it wasn't as available as it later became. Strickland, at least, writes that some men wore the white harness without a full hauberk underneath by the time of Agincourt. Also, bear in mind that the vast majority of the French were not killed by arrows, but instead were bludgeoned to death by the hammers the archers carried to help drive the stakes that they used as a defensive barrier. Yes.
Watchman 02-13-07, 06:54 PM	Had they decided to take a breather 60 to 70 yards out from the English lines, they might well have fared better. Their armor seems to have been good enough to do this.Eh, they were pretty much just pushing forwards in one big and unorganized mob. Which was also being rather funneled towards the center by the incoming arrows from the archer at the flanks, which even the well-armoured front-rank guys naturally and instinctively tried to get away from. Not much possibility for that sort of snowball to stop rolling, I'm afraid, plus even if some bright soul did think of it expressing the idea would most likely have led to a loss of face - "what, are you too scared to keep going ? Watta yella !" Like I said, the French armies had some command-and-control issues in too large numbers.
Watchman 02-13-07, 07:05 PM	It seems that they were wearing about the same gear, sure, but do we have any sources noting the weight of English armor? Not that I can think of.Don't be silly now. Everyone who could afford it wore the best defenses he could, and at that point of time that meant rather heavy multiple-layer "transitional" setups. You wouldn't have been able to tell the English MAAs from their French peers without the assorted surcoats and field-signs and the like, for the simple reason the hodge-podge of armour parts was equally diverse on both sides. Quite a few of them were also very likely bought from the same manufacturers (the Italians were still the top craftsmen around the time IIRC), leading to virtual identicality especially among the rich and powerful who could afford the most modern cutting-edge gear. Besides, we have a whole lot of assorted effigies, statues and similar sources from churches and so on from the period; by no accounts I've ever read do those show much difference between the war gear of French and English chivalry, or for that matter those of most other realms around the same time (not counting the Iberians and their considerable regional peculiarities). On the other hand, you certainly could argue that the reason these sources noted the weight of French armour at Agincourt is because of the course the battle took.Again with the silly business. As should have been glaringly obvious from what has already been said of the battle, the English heavies avoided being tired by their armours through the very simple expedient of not having to go much anywhere - they calmly waited for the French to cross the muddy and slippery field in full armour. Merely standing around doesn't tend to tire even heavily armoured men too much in normal circumstances, you know.
WhiteHarness 02-13-07, 07:10 PM	I still want to see that primary source that attributes the French loss at Agincourt to "overly heavy armour." If it's in The Great Warbow(of which I have a copy, somewhere), then tell me which one it is.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 07:34 PM	Don't be silly now. Whatever. The weight of French armor is noted, while the weight of English armor is not. It's not silly to point that out. Again with the silly business. What the hell are you talking about? As should have been glaringly obvious from what has already been said of the battle, the English heavies avoided being tired by their armours through the very simple expedient of not having to go much anywhere - they calmly waited for the French to cross the muddy and slippery field in full armour. Merely standing around doesn't tend to tire even heavily armoured men too much in normal circumstances, you know. Yes. What's your point? That's roughly what I was trying to say (i.e. what you called silly for no reason). You can argue that the weight of French armor is noted because they were the ones who moved through a muddy field. That circumstance made the downsides to heavy armor clear. I still want to see that primary source that attributes the French loss at Agincourt to "overly heavy armour." If it's in The Great Warbow(of which I have a copy, somewhere), then tell me which one it is. I already quoted it for you, noting that it may not be about Agincourt specifically. Strickland uses it on page 334.
Watchman 02-13-07, 08:05 PM	Whatever. The weight of French armor is noted, while the weight of English armor is not. It's not silly to point that out. What the hell are you talking about?Because the point being made was either irrelevant, nonexistent or false, depending on what it now was supposed to be. Yes. What's your point? That's roughly what I was trying to say (i.e. what you called silly for no reason). You can argue that the weight of French armor is noted because they were the ones who moved through a muddy field. That circumstance made the downsides to heavy armor clear.All of which points to the relativity of the idea of "too heavy armour", which is what I've been talking about since the beginning. Besides, I rather suspect the result would not have been meaningfully different even if the participants had been decked out it fully-evolved plate. Muddy ground is muddy ground, and while proper articulated plate is ceteris paribus lighter than the intermediate multiple-layer harnesses odds are it's still way too heavy to not become a major drag when you have to trudge over a messed-up clay field under enemy fire. Which brings us to what I was saying from the start, that the issue was not the respective war gear but the shortcomings of the French military system that resulted in their heavy troops advancing in such a counter-productive and unarticuated fashion over so unsuitable terrain right into a double envelopement and and ignomious rout.
OologahQ 02-13-07, 08:17 PM	I really can't figure it out from a design perspective looking at the PHB. The only class that wants medium armor is barbarian, so any non-dwarf barbarian gets a +1 AC for giving up his fast movement class ability. That doesn't seem like a very good trade.
TheCobra 02-13-07, 08:18 PM	Because the point being made was either irrelevant, nonexistent or false, depending on what it now was supposed to be. No, it wasn't. But feel free to attempt whatever type of spin you prefer.
Watchman 02-13-07, 08:21 PM	Well, D&D armour rules kinda suck anyway. Always did. At least these days the rules-mathematics involved are neat and handy and not an arcane and esoteric formula mainly useful for weeding out would-be players who do not have what it takes to become Illuminati. (Calculate THAC0!!!) :P
TheCobra 02-13-07, 08:28 PM	Well, D&D armour rules kinda suck anyway. Yes, mainly because of that max DEX crap. And because of the overall construction of the combat system. If you want combat remotely based on history, it's a mess. It works well enough for as game system, though.
mightyix 02-14-07, 04:08 PM	Breastplates don't dent as easily as you seem to think. If yours does, then I question its quality. Mine seldom dents at all, even when a big guy hits it. Norsesmithy is right: the rigid steel breastplate will spread the force of the impact far, far better than the flexible mail will. You claim that the mail flexing as it's struck absorbs energy--what do you think the steel plate denting is doing? That's absorbing energy, too, and doing a much more efficient job of it than the mail will. I'm not active in the SCA anymore for a variety of reasons, but speaking from experience, lamellar armor is the best blunt absorber out there. It's got the rigidity of a breastplate at the point of impact (as the plates interlock) and the dispersion qualities of a more fluid plate. If you're wearing a gambeson of any quality underneath, it's often hard to even know you've been hit by even a Pennsic War calibrated blow. Modern "Dragonskin" armor uses the lamellar-style properties to make it possibly the best ballistic (blunt) protection vest available today.
mightyix 02-14-07, 04:15 PM	I've read people have actually tested the arrow-resistance of certain types of armour. Roman types in this case; mail, unsurprisingly, was the weakest, scale better, and it turned out the pretty strong "Hunnic" composite bow couldn't get an arrow through a lorica segmentata from further than something like seven meters. Iron sheets are tough. As a side note, I bluntly refuse to believe dedicated armour-piercing arrowheads à la the "bodkin" were any sort of late developement. People have been shooting arrows at armoured men and animals since Late Bronze Age, and you can bet the proverbial farm on them having gotten quite creative in the good old offense-defence arms race. Doubly so as arrowheads designed specifically for penetrative power aren't exactly uncommon archeological finds. I've seen them fire a bodkin pointed scorpion bolt (think small siege engine ballista bolt) at lorica segmentata and watched it bounce off after some very minor penetration. It was less effective against modern sword blows, however, since the metal was untempered and more iron than steel. Against the mostly soft iron weapons of the day.... pretty damned impregnible. Bodkin arrows have been around for thousands of years... the Persians used early iron bodkins against the bronze armor at Thermopolye(sp?). They've been invented, forgotten, and reinvented over and over again. In the European Medieveal period, they were a late (re)invention though.
mightyix 02-14-07, 04:34 PM	I still want to see that primary source that attributes the French loss at Agincourt to "overly heavy armour." If it's in The Great Warbow(of which I have a copy, somewhere), then tell me which one it is. I don't have the references handy, but the loss at Agincourt was recently examined using crowd control/flow models and on any of the probable terrains for the battle, the French wind up in a situation where there are too many people in too small a space and end up identically to pretty much any 'people get trampled to death' scenario. Throw a longbow into the mix killing some, wounding more, and making the situation more confused and you're going to have a lot of French casualties. Generally speaking, most of the actual killing was done by dagger to the eye or throat of wounded/disabled/stuck French, rather than Longbows. It's doubtful that the victory could have happened without the longbow, but it wasn't a wonder weapon.
TheCobra 02-14-07, 04:34 PM	At least according to Strickland, Hardy, Stretton, and Soar, the arrowhead of choice against armor was a rather complicated one with three or four cutting edges. Not a simple bodkin. Generally speaking, most of the actual killing was done by dagger to the eye or throat of wounded/disabled/stuck French, rather than Longbows. Or by a hammer/mallet/maul blow to the head. One French source notes how deadly English hammers were.
mightyix 02-14-07, 04:41 PM	It absorbed blunt blows sure, but not as well as plate did. It deflected slicing sword blows which was its primary function, but against piercing chain mail was very very limited in its protection. So arrows and spears, and picks were the bane of any chain wearer. Also you didn't see too many people in plate. That kind of armor was reserved for the knights, who also rarely ever wore it, and those knights who were in plate rode heavy horses, and acted as the tanks on the battlefield. Umm... you might want to do some basic reading on the subject. There are many, many, many examples of knights fighting in full armor while dismounted, especially in the Italian penninsula. The term Lance Corporal originates with a knight (generally fully armored) assigned to lead infantry due to lack of a horse and breveted to the rank of corporal for the purpose. There are also many sets of full plate with helms that lack significant face protection because when on foot, vision was deemed more important than face protection. You've also got manuals of arms that show how to fight while on foot in full plate, weapons designed specifically for that purpose (the hand and a half sword is not historically used from horseback).
mightyix 02-14-07, 06:10 PM	By the time a fortuitious breakthrough in metallurgical techniques allowed the construction of decent solid-plate armour the defensive gear of European elite troops was already around cataphract levels and virtually immune to most ranged weapons short of powerful crossbows and composite bows with dedicated "penetrator" arrows, and decently-equipped common troops widely used kits that made the Roman infantry of old look like a bunch of pansies in shirts. I'd beg to differ on the Roman kit. Infantry throughout history have primarily been armored from the waist up (pick your lorica type), with little or no leg armor, a helmet with good visibility, and maybe a shield. Mobility and agility were more important than armor to an infantryman who was expected to march over long distances. Early Egyptian Infantry: wicker or linen vest Greek Infantry: linen, leather, or bronze breastplate, shield, maybe greaves, helmet Roman Infantry: various lorica, maybe greaves and arm protection, shield, helmet Viking/Saxon/Frankish infantry: Longer chain shirt than the Romans, shield, helmet Chinese infantry from 1st century BC: long lamellar shirts Chinese infantry from the medieval period: lamellar shirts Byzantine infantry from the medieval period: lamellar or chain shirts, usually of a longer type Medieval militia: Brigandine or or leather jack Swiss pikemen: Breastplates and maybe helms Spanish Tercico Swordmen: Bucklers, helms, and light armor Iraq War Era US Infantry: Protective Vests and Helmets
Watchman 02-14-07, 07:42 PM	You know what was one of the easiest ways to tell a Late Medieval Italian "light" infantryman apart from his "heavy" colleague ? The "light" dude didn't have leg armour (of the metal kind anyway) in order to be more mobile. Okay, and he'd usually be carrying a distinctive large oval shield as well. Other than that both were armoured up the wazoo - think hardened leather cuirass or brigandine over mail for the body, and arm plus elbow defenses of hardened leather or metal over mail. The "heavy" guy would have comparable covering for his legs as well. Like I said, in comparision the Romans were traipsing around in T-shirts. Infantry incidentally have tended to really like to armour their legs, and often the knee as well. Indeed, greaves have in some cases taken precedence over body armour. The reason's pretty simple - most shields don't cover that far down, and with a disabled leg you're just as hors de combat as with an actually mortal wound. You also most likely have a death by trampling coming up. For one example I know, around the time a certain Mohammed began preaching in Arabia armour there consisted typically of long, heavy mail hauberks and helmets and most serious fighting was done with sword and spear at close quarters. Greaves were uncommon. End result ? A lot of accounts and skeletal remnants suggesting heavy damage to the lower legs in particular. The Greek hoplites made very wide use of greaves for the simple reason their shields only covered the upper legs - and even then the uncovered thighs and groin appear to have been a favourite target for a spear-thrust, should one be able to work around the shield. A side effect was at one point a trend for additional bronze pieces for sport protection, particularly for the upper legs and arms, although these never became common and were apparently soon abandoned more or less altogether, likely for economic reasons.
TheCobra 02-14-07, 08:27 PM	As far as levels of armor go, it really depends on the exact place and period. In the 16th century, some pikemen wore very little armor, or even none at all. Others wore three-quarters plate. And I don't know about brigandines over mail. It happened sometimes, but brigs were often worn with mail bits (sleeves and so on). Layering brigandine, mail, and padding together is rather bulky.
Watchman 02-14-07, 08:57 PM	Keeps you alive though. Italy in particular was absolutely rotten with powerful crossbows, which also shows in the styles of full plate made there. The front rankers of pike formations incidentally tended to be quite heavily armoured - anything up to full plate was pretty common, although those would usually have been of "munitions" grade and not the tricked-out cutting-edge masterpieces of the nobility. The specialist shock troops of the infantry, Doppelsoldners with their greatswords and halberds and the Iberian version for the same purpose, the sword-and-buckler men, were similarly heavily equipped - they were after all the vanguard who was supposed to fight its way into the enemy pike line and open a breach, and repulse such moves from the other side. You don't do that in a shirt (if nothing else the enemy missile troops would likely stop you cold).
TheCobra 02-14-07, 09:47 PM	Well, in this thread, Bob Reed, who knows something about armor, said mail was generally not worn under a brigandine: http://forums.swordforum.com/printthread.php?t=9805&pp=25 Also, I can think of a 16th-century source or two (Smythe, for example) contrasting mail with brigadines, suggesting brigs were worn without mail underneath.
Southernskies 02-15-07, 04:20 AM	First on the hijacked portion: Some of the reasons have been pointed out about why armour moved from chain to plate. In my understanding there were several factors. 1. Cost/Time to manufacture. 2. Maintainence. 3. Social status (plate impressed the peasants more than chain). 4. Improvements in metallurgy. A combination of all of the above apply. In the transition period, the *technology* of chain (I'm talking 6- 8- and 10- link chain designs, not the common 4- link rubbish that you see as replica's) provided far better protection by weight than plate; until metallurgy overcame that issue. Good chain only flexes in one direction (which was like hitting a solid breastplate of the following century with most weapons of the periods). Even with improvements in metallurgy, chain design had reached its limit due to the inherent weakness of 15-50% of the links being joined by rivets/welding/etc. *** Regarding the original question; d20 Star Wars has a much better method of representing armour. Armour = DR/lightsabre If you simply change all instances of armour/shield bonus = DR/- (with adamantine acting as an enhancement bonus to DR and magic still adding to AC) then the entire dynamic of the game changes. Suddenly the scale between a chain shirt, breastplate and full plate gives a lot more historical comparison of the protection once you actually get hit. Multiple attack/low damage PCs and monsters have a hard time dealing with heavy armours and the protection of a shield is significant, even in light armour against common foes.
WhiteHarness 02-15-07, 10:06 AM	Ummm...what? "6- 8- and 10- link designs?" Nearly all surviving European mail is of the four-links-passing-through-a-fifth variety. There is absolutely no reason to presume that any of the modern mail-weaves dreamed up by modern re-enactors ever existed during the period in which mail was used as armour. I'd like to see some solid evidence for your claims that "good mail only flexes in one direction" and "mail provided far better protection by weight than plate." If that were the case, then why was the head always defended by plate even at the height of the Age of Mail? On what scholarship are you basing your heretofore unheard-of claims?
Cold Napalm 02-15-07, 05:34 PM	I don't know about the 6 or 10 in one links but I have seens 8 in one period pieces from oddly enough a slide show in one of my anthropology classes. So I'm fairly certain the 8 in one existed and according to the guest lecturer was pretty common. Since I can't find any examples of 8 in one in any of the books I own, I kinda doubt about that pattern being "common"...but from seeing the slide, it's kinda hard to argue that it didn't exist. As for blunt trauma, which is all I ever discussed, the riveted 8 in one chain over a gamberson with 5/16 rings absorbed the energy from the warmace we were testing a hell of a lot better then my breastplate over a gamberson. The warmace was a test weapon where we used hockey pucks the end of a 5 foot piece of rattan and swung two handed (which means why yes this is pretty much a REAL bludgeoning weapon as it's designer forgot to use foam to give it the required give). Anyways, when we restricted the blows to 20 degrees or less, I could hardly feel the blows with my plate, but the guy in chain said it hurt like hell. When we went to 90 degree max arc blows, the guy in chain said it hurt like hell while I ended up with a dented breast plate and blood in my lungs. I was coughing up blood for a week. The guy in chain...some bruises. So like I said, the breastplate is better right until you break it's tension point. Most mass weapons when swung without restricted arcs WILL break the tension point of plates (sans the late era full plates which some of were actually bullet proof). As for an animal kicking harder then a flanged mace...why yes a bull will kick harder but since what matters against plate is the tension point, it's all about the pounds per square inch. The flanged mace gets ALL the force into a line about 1 inch long while the bull's hit area is about a square foot. Even then I doubt the plate protected him from a full contact bull kick since I have seen somebody in a breastplate get kick by a horse in exhibition and he nearly died from having his ribs cracked in and the breastplate was cracked in half.
Watchman 02-15-07, 05:37 PM	Monolith iron plate of any larger size only became metallurgically feasible with the developement of better furnaces around the High Medieval period. The earlier ones simply didn't yield iron in a form that could have been worked into a decent-quality large plate with even remotely sensible effort. Plate could also be manufactured relatively faster and cheaper with the aid of machinery like water-driven hammers, so Southernskies is at least basicaslly correct with points #1 and #4. The metallurgical weakness of the sort of large plate the earlier iron-production methods would have produced probably makes the claim of mail being "stronger" conditionally tenable. The rest doesn't make much sense though. Far as I know 1:4 mail was pretty much the "international standard", and presumably provided a good balance of strenght and flexibility (IRL examples I've seen of the stuff fall like heavy cloth). I've seen mentions of 1:6 "Persian" mail though, but no details of what the linking ratio means in practice. An educated guess would be a stiffer and probably stronger weave, possibly also more point-resistant which would certainly make sense given the long traditions of effective military archery in the region the name suggests. A sort of mail version of the "locked scale" principle then. The bit about "good mail only flexing in one direction" also strikes me as rather nonsensical. It seems to me it would be quite structurally impossible for mail to not bend equally in two directions at least, and in any case the claim readily conflicts with the way the stuff was used to defend inner joints where flexibility is, obviously, of prime importance.