Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TMPikachu 08-31-04, 10:40 PM	I guess if this question should go anywhere, why not the equipment board? Is there historic evidence of armor made of metal studded to leather? I know there's pictures of men in studded clothing before, but from what I know, those are all examples of brigandine armor (the studs actually hold plates on to the inside of the clothing)
Thorak 08-31-04, 11:48 PM	Studded leather armor is, to my knowledge, a D&D fabrication. It came about because of the exact misunderstanding regarding brigandine that you mention, the studs held on the plates that were underneath which did the actual protecting. For that matter, consider this; if you attach studs to something, you're poking holes in it. That weakens it. If they're being attached to hard leather, then the leather will shatter easily, especially around the studs. If they're attached to soft leather, then they can be easily pounded into your flesh, and against edged weapons they would actually prevent the blade from skittering off, and catch it enough to drive it into you. In the real world, studded leather armor would break apart and/or kill you faster. This is why the plate armors didn't have big spikes, and as few ridges as possible, incidentally; those were weak points that would catch the enemy's weapon and guide it to the vulnerable spot.
bradjob 08-31-04, 11:57 PM	Yes, there was studded leather armor. However, none of the PHB pictures show what armor really looked like, and mostly DnD is inaccurate with its use of armor.
TMPikachu 09-01-04, 12:11 AM	Yes, there was studded leather armor. However, none of the PHB pictures show what armor really looked like, and mostly DnD is inaccurate with its use of armor. how did it look then?
tate 09-01-04, 01:05 AM	Yes studded leather did exist, but sorry I dont really know how it looked. You must remember that thick layers of padding were worn under the armor, so the studs digging into you was not a huge deal, well the armor still wasnt great, but you know what I mean. Even for heavy armors like full plate, suits of leather and padding were worn underneath to cusion the blows.
Thorak 09-01-04, 01:18 AM	No, studded leather did not exist. The only kind of leather armour known to have existed in medieval Europe was called cuirboille, and it was a hardened leather armor that wasn't studded for the reasons I gave before. Any other leather bits were only added on for reinforcement and localized protection, and weren't studded either. I suggest you look up a reputable arms and armour text, or find a decent online reference guide to armour (One available Here (http://www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/glossary-AA/armsindx.htm)) Or kindly provide a link or reference to whatever source you found that claims otherwise. I've done a fair bit of research (by which I don't mean Google searches) into arms and armour, so I'd be awfully surprised if you found anything.
tate 09-01-04, 01:34 AM	Well I have also done research and did find it to exist, strange huh? But honestly, it doesnt matter to me if it did or not. I do not mean to seem rude by saying that, or by saying that I wont search online for more research to provide a link for this forum. I have lots of other things to do and dont want to spend my free time doing that (I would much rather talk about playing D&D :) ) I am not trying to be rude, the site you provided did seem to be well reputed, and did not mention studded leather armor (but also did not say anything against it) so I guess it might not have existed. Oh well, in D&D it does and thats good enough for me right now.
Dark Cyril 09-01-04, 02:02 AM	From what I understand, studded leather was used widely in Asia, by the Mongols mostly. But keep in mind that that's hearsay and I have not done my research on it (I know I know... bad me. lol)
Arcador 09-01-04, 02:19 AM	This is a little off topic but after several "searches" I found this: The most medieval armors were devided into 2 groups : light and heavy. Light ones were used on all types of infantry, since allowing them to run and manoeuvre (of course reducing the speed and stuff). The other one - the heavy were so heavy that the users only used them on mount, and if the fighter was droped down to the ground, he was almost helpless, unable to stand himslef (with no help), if there wasn't something to pull himself or else. Anyway, this is fantazy system where the heroes take massive damage as a flesh wound and run with 2 handed axes on the field. It is good :)
Fixxxer 09-01-04, 03:15 AM	Well I have also done research and did find it to exist, strange huh? But honestly, it doesnt matter to me if it did or not. I do not mean to seem rude by saying that, or by saying that I wont search online for more research to provide a link for this forum. I have lots of other things to do and dont want to spend my free time doing that (I would much rather talk about playing D&D :) ) I am not trying to be rude, the site you provided did seem to be well reputed, and did not mention studded leather armor (but also did not say anything against it) so I guess it might not have existed. Oh well, in D&D it does and thats good enough for me right now. I don't want to seem rude, either... ...however I'm afraid I just don't buy it. It's nothing against you personally, tate, but I have a very difficult time leanding credence to anyone who says "Yes, I know about this because I've done a lot of reasearch, but I'm not going to tell you anything about it, give you any clue as what this "research" I have done is, tell you where you might be able to find information about it or even post a link to anything that might help prove that what I'm saying is the truth." Thorak provided a link to help back up his claim. Thus far, you have provided nothing except a contrary statement (I can't even call it an argument) and a paragraph that seems designed to be a runaround way of saying "What I say is right and this is evidenced by how little I care about proving so"...which in itself seems very contrary to your own claim, since if you don't have the free time (as you put it) to type up a link or even the title of a book that supports your claim, how come you have the time to type up an entire paragraph about how you are so right that you don't even have to provide evidence to back your claim up? Once again, I'm not trying to be rude, but as of yet, it seems very much like your side of things just doesn't hold water.
Eagle Prince 09-01-04, 03:45 AM	Yeah, about falling off your horse in heavy armor and not standing up. Sounds more like an old man fell off a horse and got hurt, nothing to do with the weight. I don't think the question is if studded leather ever existed. I mean in the whole history of warfare, someone probably tried it out. So I think it would be a matter of how effective it is as armor. If it was actually cheap and effective, I think it would have been used a lot and so there would be lots of examples of it. Not sure of any official term for this armor, I've heard it called ringmail but I've also heard of different types of chainmail called ringmail so I doubt that is the real name. But its like quilled leather or cloth with metal rings sewn on it. I think that could make some alright "studded leather". Not as good as chainmail, but since it would only take sewing, you could mass produce it with unskilled labor rather than trained armorsmiths. And I haven't ran any tests on it personally, but I think it would spread out the force a bit more and give a little better protection over just quilled leather. Not sure how popular that armor was either, but I think it would have a good marketing niche since you can make it with unskilled labor.
Ssussunriyh 09-01-04, 04:39 AM	Not that I've done any real research into the subject, but the only historical reference to studded armor I have ever found was in a book I have entitled Brassey's Book of Body Armor: Illustration on page 18: Reconstruction of a Sumerian heavy infantryman, about 2500 BC. His armor consists of a laced-on helmet (of bronze?) and a metal-studded cloak (the cloak is apparently made of cloth, not leather.) He is also equipped with a spear and a shield, and probably fought in a phalanx formation. All other examples that appeared to be studded armor were actually scale armor, brigandine, lamellar, or a medieval coat-of-plates.
jasper 09-01-04, 08:51 AM	Oakeshott, Ewart books and articles. A Knight and his Armour, A Knight in Battle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Castle, A Knight and his Horse , A Knight and his Weapons, Dark Age Warrior*, The Archaeology of Weapons , The Sword in the Age of Chivalry . Journal of the Arms and Armour Society of London, A Royal Sword in Westminster Abbey in The Connoisseur Magazine 1951*. The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England *, Fighting Men (with Henry Treece)*, The Blindfold Game*, Sound of Battle (with Leonard Clark)*, European Weapons and Armour, Records of the Medieval Sword*, Sword in Hand*, Sword in the Viking Age* (not yet published). http://www.oakeshott.org/ David Edge, John Miles Paddock Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight Boutell, Charles Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages David Nicolle Arms and Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350 Western Europe , and the two classics Charles Ffoulkes The Armourer and His Craft from XIth to XVIth Century Stone’s Glossary of Arms and armor
CaoSlayer 09-01-04, 09:02 AM	I remember two things about armors from the history channel: neither two handed sword or full plate were heavy and slow. I still remember how a man tumbled using a real armor, and how two handed swords are slim so fast to use. and another, the matter of the topic it is that light infantry that barely had any money, used mainly padded armor and some started to add little rectangular pieces of metal for more protection. since this was a kind of cheap armor for poor mens, there exist little to zero armors of that kind because the time than have pass.
Dark Cyril 09-01-04, 09:29 AM	I remember two things about armors from the history channel: neither two handed sword or full plate were heavy and slow. I still remember how a man tumbled using a real armor, and how two handed swords are slim so fast to use. and another, the matter of the topic it is that light infantry that barely had any money, used mainly padded armor and some started to add little rectangular pieces of metal for more protection. since this was a kind of cheap armor for poor mens, there exist little to zero armors of that kind because the time than have pass. Yes. Hollywood has definately screwed up our perceptions of armor and weapons. Anyone who's read John Clements article in the latest issue of Dragon should know what I'm talking about. When discussing plate armor: "For foot combat, this armor was well balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well suited for wear in combat, and is far from teh awkward, lumbering cliche presented by Hollywood." Anyway, end off topic post.
Thorak 09-01-04, 10:44 AM	The other one - the heavy were so heavy that the users only used them on mount, and if the fighter was droped down to the ground, he was almost helpless, unable to stand himslef (with no help), if there wasn't something to pull himself or else. This is a pet peeve of mine. Plate armour was never so heavy that an armoured warrior couldn't easily get up if he got thrown off his horse. Or need help to remount. The nobility weren't stupid, they were the elite heavy cavalry of Europe. Armour that heavy would make them easily killed if unhorsed, and would be incredibly stupid to wear into combat, since any peasant with a pole could kill you. In fact, even the heaviest plate was easier to wear than a suit of chainmail. Because it strapped to each part of the body, and distributed the weight in that way, while chain dragged entirely on the shoulders. The basis for the myth you mention comes from two related sources. Late-era jousting armour was ridiculously thick and heavy, because protection was key and if you were unhorsed, you weren't at any more risk, so movement wasn't necessary. And the nobility who tended to rely on the heavier armours rather than skill tended to be the out of shape ones who never got involved in combat anyway. So not only was the armour ridiculously heavy, the person was probably too fat to mount their horse themselves anyway. This is where those tripods were used to lower knights onto their horses, and these were the people who were as immobile as turtles when unhorsed. But this was armour only used for jousting, and people who never saw combat. Combat armour was entirely different.
tate 09-01-04, 02:06 PM	Sorry guys for comming across with the "I'm right, you're wrong, and thats that" attitude. My previous post was meant to be more of a concession, saying that studded probably didnt exist even though I thought it did (based on research done a few years ago for school, and the sources have since been lost, but honestly they probably werent the best). In regards to ring mail: I have read that this armor was not widely used, and was often chainmail but people mistook it. Any evidence for that to be true, or did ring mail exist? (sorry for the slight off topic)
Eagle Prince 09-01-04, 03:08 PM	Well its a real armor, I just wasn't sure if ringmail was the right name for it. But that is basically what I picture DnD studded leather as, not leather with those goth-punker spikes covering it. Although I wouldn't doubt if someone actually wore some armor like that at some point--even if it wasn't very good armor, I doubt that would have stopped some idiot from trying it out. Thorak: Yeah I find that annoying also, and I'm sure a lot of gamers do. Not very long ago irl someone tried arguing with me that a claymore weighed 30lbs. But I think the worst I ever heard was in history class. These two kids who thought they were history buffs, they were talking about ordering battleaxes from a catalog or something that supposedly weighed 30lbs. Then they both, agreeing with each other, started talking about how that was only due to modern tech and being a replica, and that real medieval axes would have weighed 80lbs or some crap. Lol, most of the time its not even worth arguing with them, you just got to laugh to yourself about it.
Fixxxer 09-01-04, 04:05 PM	But I think the worst I ever heard was in history class. These two kids who thought they were history buffs, they were talking about ordering battleaxes from a catalog or something that supposedly weighed 30lbs. Then they both, agreeing with each other, started talking about how that was only due to modern tech and being a replica, and that real medieval axes would have weighed 80lbs or some crap. Lol, most of the time its not even worth arguing with them, you just got to laugh to yourself about it. AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ... AAAHHHHAHAHAHAHA!!! *pees self* .... AHAHAHAHA!!! Do me a favor. The next time you see those two kids, tell them I said they're stupid. I know a guy who swears up and down that back in the day, a katana weighed less than half a pound and could cut a granite boulder clean in two without marring the blade. :rolleyes:
Farganger 09-01-04, 04:52 PM	This seems like another vexed question. I recall some references to studded leather armor (leather armor with "bezants", that is coins or coin-like metal discs) in Italian texts from the Renaissance. But that's a recollection from grad school, quite a few years ago. :)
Thorak 09-01-04, 05:27 PM	This seems like another vexed question. I recall some references to studded leather armor (leather armor with "bezants", that is coins or coin-like metal discs) in Italian texts from the Renaissance. But that's a recollection from grad school, quite a few years ago. :) I've seen references to coin armour like you mention before, but without exception it was a reference to something closer to lamellar armor (something core D&D doesn't have, think lots of small plates tied together; samurai armour was chiefly lamellar), with the coins wired together, or a variation of scale armour, with the discs tied to a leather backing. There's plenty of armours that use leather as a backing or [/i]reinforcement[/i] material, and even cuirboille that uses hard boiled leather plates (which is effectively D&D leather armour), but nothing between the two. Because driving studs through cuirboille reduces it's strength and makes it likely to crack, and putting studs through soft leather without trying to cover the outside or inside to a very large extent with metal, as with lamellar, scale, brigandine, etc, means that the studs will just catch the blade and direct it at the near-worthless soft leather, letting it cut through even easier than a plain soft leather jerkin would. It may have been tried out by someone at some point, but it wasn't ever used as a type of armour, not in any way that it's ever been recognized by any scholarly work I've ever read on the subject. Not that leather with studs wasn't used, but it wasn't used with the studs as far apart as D&D studs are. And the studs were almost always supporting the real protective plates. A 'real' studded leather would be a variant on scale or brigandine armours.
Vintar 09-01-04, 08:37 PM	I am a medievial history buff. I believe I read studded armor did exist - (never really popular though if I recall) as a makeshift peasant armor. Not the sleek armor of DnD. And Eagle Prince - I have a claymore - weighs maybe 10-12 pounds - 15 max. Those kids are idiots. And yes Fixxxer - katanas did weigh almost nothing - they were the best swords ever made anywhere in the world! (although I think it is the blade alone that weighs 1/2lb) I don't know about cutting a boulder in half. :looloo: But they were sweet swords! As well - there is very little doubt that a smauri with a sword would take down a Europeon knight with a sword on horse or foot because they had very elaborate martial arts equivelent systems with the sword - and the katana would be faster. If the knight had a lance however - things might be different. Now that would be a fight worth seeing! :ayyyy!:
Count Arioch the 28th 09-01-04, 08:52 PM	Wrong about the Samurai and knight analgoy on several points: 1. Katanas were not made to pierce metal. They had a nasty tendancy to break when striking a rigid object. (In fact, if I recall correctly, you were trained not to strike hard with a katana for that very reason.) On the other hand, most japanese armors were made to deflect force, as Arrows were actually more common in japanese warfare than is assumed. Europen weapons would have similiar trouble piercing samurai armor. So, it would be a case of pure skill, instead of quality of arms and armor. 2. Knights DID have extensive martial arts training, to say otherwise is pure folly. Why would they not have any training in fighting? Asian martial art styles are famous because their practitioners actually wrote tehm down, and kept using them long after other forms of warfare replaced them in the field of battle. The europeans never wrote them down, for fear that their enemies might find their secrets, teaching only by word of mouth. So, when the way of hand to hand combat died out in europe, they simply stopped teaching them, and instead trained with more modern war techniques. Still, I do think it would be interesting to see thw two cultures fight, simply to see who would win. Oh, and for the record, Viking swords were just as fine as katanas were, being folded hundreds of times in a similiar process. Except Vikings had access to good, pure steel, and the Japanese had to work with japanese steel, which is utter crap. (Modern japanese swordmakers probably use steel from Argentina, like everyone else does.)
Darrett 09-01-04, 08:56 PM	The initial reply was entirely correct. Putting studs into hardened leather would make it less resistant to damage. However, there may very well have been supple leather with studs put into it in use, or perhaps not. I've seen a certain amount of arguement and indications to both the former and latter. The bit about Platemail being so heavy that one couldn't move in it is a bit of a bastardization of the truth... during the era of the first firearms, armoursmiths would work on trying to create armour that could stand up to a bullet. Some of the first designs were so heavy that those using them couldn't move about while wearing them, and thus they weren't used. Platemail was actually fairly easy to move in. It was much easier to move in than Chainmail, or Ringmail, and can be compared to wearing hardened leather in many respects. The big disadvantage was that the wearer would get hot and tired in a hurry, and that it cost an arm and a leg.
TMPikachu 09-01-04, 09:08 PM	From what I understand, studded leather was used widely in Asia, by the Mongols mostly. But keep in mind that that's hearsay and I have not done my research on it (I know I know... bad me. lol) I'm pretty sure that's not true. From what I know, mongol armour was usually... silk undershirt+cloth+ chain shirt, or lamellar (leather or metal) possibly brigandine later on, picked up from China. and very rarely, mountain-pattern-scale, an armour completely unique in creation of China. as for the heavily armoured knight... All of that focus on heavy armor weighed down the horse, making the horse much less mobile. The enclosed helmet also restricted hearing and sight, making signals much harder to pull off. So on the horse, the plate mailed knight was significantly less mobile and slower than say, a lighter armored horse nomad. I really don't know how mobile someone with plate mail is. Does anyone have video footage? That would be a good start. I imagine it wouldn't make them as clunky as people would think, but could they run? Or jog? Could they balance themselves well (you know, all that weight plus restricted joint movement). I would still think that a plate armored fellow would have a much bigger mobility problem than someone in say, a typical lamellar outfit. I'd say the biggest problems are still... 1) alot of weight on a horse so it's harder to get around the battlefield 2) senses are impaired, so its harder to tell what's going on. On the age old Samurai Vs Knight debate... well, they've both acclimated themselves to fight in their environments. I'm positive knights learned how to fight well, the headbashing style of combat in Europe would have lead up to many bloody hand-to-hand encounters. Also depends on what these two warriors are wearing. The Katana would be a bad weapon to strike a full-plated knight with. A metal-laden horse would also never catch up to the unencumbered Japanese mount either. It'd be better for the samurai to take up his composite bow and ding his opponent with arrows in that situation, just ride around in circles. Then again, we'll never know without a direct encounter between the two. Hmmmm... Knights fought Mongols (and lost) Samurai fought Mongols (and almost lost, exept for a lucky storm) So at least we know: Mongolians> Knights/Samurai :D
Thorak 09-01-04, 09:42 PM	All of that focus on heavy armor weighed down the horse, making the horse much less mobile. The enclosed helmet also restricted hearing and sight, making signals much harder to pull off. So on the horse, the plate mailed knight was significantly less mobile and slower than say, a lighter armored horse nomad. I really don't know how mobile someone with plate mail is. Does anyone have video footage? That would be a good start. I imagine it wouldn't make them as clunky as people would think, but could they run? Or jog? Could they balance themselves well (you know, all that weight plus restricted joint movement). I would still think that a plate armored fellow would have a much bigger mobility problem than someone in say, a typical lamellar outfit. I'd say the biggest problems are still... 1) alot of weight on a horse so it's harder to get around the battlefield 2) senses are impaired, so its harder to tell what's going on. Except the most horrible bastardization of what the warhorse was like has been fully accomplished, without exception, by Hollywood. Most movies portray warhorses as Arabians, or a similar largish riding horse. This is entirely incorrect. Warhorses were big. Modern-day plow horses are the descendents of the medieval warhorse. While I won't say they're the same breed any more due to 500 years of different breeding purposes, the medieval warhorse had much more in common with the Clydesdale than any modern riding horse. They were this big precisely because of the weight of the armour they wore, and the advantages on the battlefield. They weren't slowed down a great deal. In fact, many comments during the Crusades refer to the knights being amazed at the 'small' horses the Muslims rode, as light cavalry. Which were likely pretty close to modern Arabians, a fairly large riding horse. And while they were faster than the Europeans, they couldn't stop the Europeans. Picture a chihuahua nipping at the heels of a great dane as the dane plods along, and you get a somewhat accurate picture. Though, later in the Crusades, the Europeans learned the advantages of smaller horses, namely less water intake and requirement. Which was important, in the desert. They often switched over to the Muslim horses captured in battle, but had to change tactics as well as their new mounts couldn't carry the old barding. As for samurai vs knights; it's irrelevant. Katana were great weapons, for cutting cloth, leather, and flesh. Anything harder, or a hard blow from the side, and they could shatter due to the thinness of the blade. They didn't need to be good against metal armour, because they never encountered it. European medieval swords, similarly, were poorer-made, and basically big cleavers. Because they whacked metal armour a lot, and had to be able to stand up to the abuse, and were almost as useful just for bashing at the armor as cutting anything. They didn't need to be better at cutting flesh, because they did the job adequately well, and the important targets were clad in metal anyway. Neither side was optimally geared to fight the other. A samurai vs knight fight would probably end up with both of them getting too exhausted to continue. As for the mongols; the fact that (at best guess from the sources I've seen) there were millions of them, as compared to the several hundred thousand combatants in all of Europe, was a factor. When the Mongols invaded, they prevailed as much from sheer weight of numbers as from any other possible advantage. They also tended to use (IIRC) conquered peoples for their frontline infantry, meaning they could care less about casualties.
Willie the Duck 09-01-04, 09:57 PM	Vintar, even a 10-12 lb. sword is probably of cerimonial design and purpose (where the 30 lb sword myth came from). In reality, and sword over maybe 5-8 lbs would be impractical, not because you couldn't swing it, but because after a few swings, some where you connected and others where you didn't, you would jerk your joints about so much that you would be fatigued in the first two minutes (if not genuinely injured). Katanas - let's just get this over (until the next thread), katanas ARE NOT the perfect weapon. There is no such thing as the perfect weapon. They are simply the weapon of choice of the royalty of a country a bunch of 18 year old americans ransacked 50 years ago and spread popular myths about through their vast entertainment industry. Seriously, if Indonesia had invaded China and bombed Pearl Harbor, all the fan boys would be running around with immitation Kris instead. The super folded metallic "plywood" is a sympton of their low quality of ore and the fact that only the wealthiest of the wealthy had swords. The katana has the advantages of being light enough to be a hand-and-a-half sword that you can actually use one handed for an entire battle (ever tried that with a bastard sword? Whoof-da!), and being curved enough to inflict a deep cut on unarmored flesh without sacrificing much in the momentum of the swing. Knight vs. Samurai - 1) Both stand back while their peasents beet the @#$% out of each other. 2) Whichever one is invading the other is sunk before they land. 3) they set aside their ancient toys and duke it out with guns. Anyway, on to the main point (if there is one). Studded leather is a really bad idea. If it existed at all, it probably was some rich noble that wasn't even wearing armor, just had fancy metal-studded clothing on. Seriously, if you look at depictions of studded leather from the early editions, it seems most like bronze and copper lamilar from the egyptian/sumarian/persian era. I think it just took off from there.
Fixxxer 09-02-04, 12:58 AM	Ah Christ! I didn't intend on starting up the much-hated katana argument. *bails from this thread, since it's obviously going down like a Floating Sherman at Normandy Beach*
Incenjucar 09-02-04, 01:13 AM	I can see -densely- studded leather armor being useful in some situations, though, frankly, more in the 'rapier and buckler' situation than the 'mace and longsword' situation. Supple, less-bulky armor that could deflect light cutting edges would be great for dueling situations (especially since piercing vs. stiff objects tends to just slide right through, and chopping leather is easier than chopping metal bits). It would be a way to get the chain effect to a degree without bulking up on all of that padding. Whether it ever existed... not until the underground clubber (as in, dance clubs, not burrowing ogres) era, that I'm aware of.
Cacevius 09-02-04, 02:48 AM	Quickly a few articles here which are of importance to this thread: (1) Was metal-reinforced leather armor at some time in history used pervasively? The best time to look for this is the early middle ages - when mail was unlikely and scarce. There is very little archeological evidence of armor in the Carolingian era at all, and only a small piece of interlocking rings was ever found, so indirect means using contemporary literature, illustrations, tapestries and such are used instead. See for this the catalog of of the exhibition Kunst und Kultur der Karolingerzeit, Paderborn 1999, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, Cp. V the article of Heiko Steuer: Bewaffnung und Kriegführung der Sachsen und Franken, passim and esp. p. 317, cat. nr. V.69. http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/coupland.htm also gives a good, though a little more dated account on the knowledge on armor of this time - but use of metal-reinforced leather appears plausible from that. Other authors - see the first volume of G. Ortenburg, Heerwesen der Neuzeit, 1984 Bernhard & Graefe, Bonn, Abb. 7, and W. Volkert, Adel bis Zunft, Lexikon des Mittelalters, Beck, München, 1991, article 'Rüstung' - usually recognize the pervasive use of metal reinforced leather or quilted armor based on interpretation of literary sources, illustrations and the Bayeux tapestry until the middle of the 11th century at least. (2) On the weight of swords refer to: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm. Have fun, Cacevius
Random bloke 09-02-04, 07:50 AM	As for the mongols; the fact that (at best guess from the sources I've seen) there were millions of them, as compared to the several hundred thousand combatants in all of Europe, was a factor. When the Mongols invaded, they prevailed as much from sheer weight of numbers as from any other possible advantage. They also tended to use (IIRC) conquered peoples for their frontline infantry, meaning they could care less about casualties.There are currently less then 5 million mongols in an area which is by all accounts slightly bigger then the one the original Tataro-Mongolian invasion came from. There is absolutely no way there were millions of cobatants before modern agriculture and all...
jasper 09-02-04, 08:30 AM	will Hivers hives! How did those old knights get their legs around Clydesdales. They draft horses! literally! Please quit getting your information from anime, cartoons, junk ficition, classic fiction and do some research. Next thing you know people live in thatch roof homes with canopy beds because it rain cats and dogs.
Thorak 09-02-04, 10:56 AM	There are currently less then 5 million mongols in an area which is by all accounts slightly bigger then the one the original Tataro-Mongolian invasion came from. There is absolutely no way there were millions of cobatants before modern agriculture and all... Except that the Mongol Empire which invaded Europe, if you're referring to the one big conflict Mongols and Europeans had historically in the 13th century , was one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Here's a link (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/page4.html) that shows three maps spanning the 13th century. While there's some discrepancies between the last two for admitted historical vagueness, the Mongol empire at the time included most of modern China and a significant portion of Russia, as well as myriad other smaller countries to the south and possibly much of India. If you want to talk about modern populations, there's something close to 3 billion people in the area the Mongol empire at the time held, assuming about 2 billion for China and 1 billion for India, and assuming that the unconquered portions of both are made up with the other territories including Russia. Obviously, historical populations would be much less, but my point is that the Mongol empire at the time was huge, and perfectly capable of supporting a standing army of millions. Especially considering the Mongols often took all able-bodied men from captured cities and forced them into the army.
TMPikachu 09-02-04, 11:02 AM	Except the most horrible bastardization of what the warhorse was like has been fully accomplished, without exception, by Hollywood. Most movies portray warhorses as Arabians, or a similar largish riding horse. This is entirely incorrect. Warhorses were big. Modern-day plow horses are the descendents of the medieval warhorse. While I won't say they're the same breed any more due to 500 years of different breeding purposes, the medieval warhorse had much more in common with the Clydesdale than any modern riding horse. They were this big precisely because of the weight of the armour they wore, and the advantages on the battlefield. They weren't slowed down a great deal. I know warhorses were biiiiig horses. They were also slower, less agile horses, which required a much greater amount of feed, restricting mobility, range, and endurance. Like the Katana, the huge warhorses of Europe worked for European warfare, just as the Katana worked for Japanese warfare. It worked for Europe. A small arabian would not do well in the battle style of European armies, just as a large large horse would not fit in with steppe nomads. I think one of the greatest misconceptions of history is the assumption that 'more armor=better' for all cases, which is not true. and the horrible misjudgement of historyanyone can make is the grotesque assumption that Mongols won through sheer weight in numbers. NO! That's just ridiculous. People who say that are only clouded by national pride. In the times of the middle ages, the armies of Europe were completely outclassed by the Mongol horsemen. The mongols did not outnumber them. It was in fact the other way around. The hardest thing the Mongol campaigners had to worry against was the sheer weight in numbers the Europeans had. I mean, think about it, the mongols are invaders from halfway across Asia, and they're attacking an entire continent full of foreigners. Why does the 'sheer weight of numbers' idea ever come up anyways? Well, European misconceptions. At that time, the Europeans could not comprehend how any fighting force could be so fast, so mobile, and so organised. They did not realise that it was the same commanders and their forces striking at different points and assumed "Noone can move that fast or be that organised, there must be millions of them hidden all over!". It was also a way to make an excuse. They didn't want to admit that a numerically inferior force could have destroyed many many many many times their number of proud knights. At that time, the tactics of medieval europe were downright primitive. Ranks and command were hereditary, in contrast to the Mongols who promoted by merit (though nobility still carried an advantage). The usual European mode of warfare was to gather up your boys and ram them into each other. Mongols, on the contrast, had many instraments and banners for signalling, and torches for signalling at night. Their tactics were already strong, but had been tempered to a fine edge from previous conflict with Persia and China. They also brought along gunpowder, such as explosives to intimidate and cause damage, as well as smoke screens to confuse opponents. There is also the awesome power of the composite bow, able to launch arrows that pierced chain armor from horseback (fast horseback, at that). It is also true the Mongolians had many auxillaries. They were equal oppertunity employers. Caring not for race or religion (they had laws for religious tolerance. Holymen were also spared during conquest), if you were loyal and could fight, you could join the horde. It's been documented that a captured Mongol scout was actually an Englishman! He was an exiled knight, found his way into the middle east, gambled away his fortunes, then joined the Mongol forces as a mercenary. The Mongols were not mindlessly bloodthirsty either. It is true entire cities were put to the sword, but only because they fought against them. They still did not persecute based on religion; quite a few Mongols were in fact Muslims and Nestorian Christians, though most tended to be Buddhist or worship their native god, The Eternal Blue Sky. Mongols also guaranteed safe passage for ambassadors and messengers. On the contrast, the European nations they dealt with had the annoying tendancy of killing Mongol ambassadors (which just made things worse in the end). To percieve them as a teeming horde of savages that overwhelmed the civilization of Europe with sheer numbers borders close on racism, the denial than any Asian army could devistate so many Europeans so efficiently. Just as the myth of the invincible Katana and immobile plate is just that, a myth, so is it the idea of the 'horde' that swept through Eastern Europe (which also breaks the myth of the 'glorius' unstoppable armored knight). It is just eurocentric thinking to dare claim the Mongols won by sheer weight of numbers. It would be like saying the Romans conquored as much as they did because there were lots of them, it would be like saying Alexander just directed a big mob of guys to thump heads. You have to realise the Mongols, lead by Ghengis Khan and his descendants, conquored more territory than any other force on earth. Twice as much as the largest Chinese dynasties, a bit more than twice the largest expanse of the Roman Empire, four times as much as Alexander the Great. The tactics of the mongols, notably outstanding commanders like Sudebei have been studied by some of 'modern' history's greatest generals. Rommel the famous 'desert fox' was known to be an avid reader of Sudebei's campaigns, as was the US general Patton. Historians reguard the Mongols (plus China and Persia) as the world's first 'modern' armies. They fought to win, fought to live.
Thorak 09-02-04, 11:05 AM	will Hivers hives! How did those old knights get their legs around Clydesdales. They draft horses! literally! Please quit getting your information from anime, cartoons, junk ficition, classic fiction and do some research. Next thing you know people live in thatch roof homes with canopy beds because it rain cats and dogs. You are aware that it's possible to ride a draft horse, right? Check the link below to see a guy riding a Belgian. And as for me doing some research, how about you try and consider that other people just might now (a lot) more than you about things? For the record, I am wrapping up my Honours BA in history this year, with a focus on the Medieval and Early Modern periods. I've done extensive research into medieval arms and armour, mostly from my own personal interest, but I do know how to do research. For that matter, here's a web source; Clicky (http://www.classicalfencing.com/horsetraining.shtml) And I never said the medieval warhorses were draft horses, or were just as big. I said they were bigger than normal riding horses, and that modern draft horses are the modern descendents. There's been 500 years of selective breeding that may have made them even bigger. But with the decline of the knight, there was no need to keep the Greathorses around for the nobility, so they got picked up by peasants for plow animals, since they were stronger than other horses. Next time, perhaps you should do a bare minimum of research before responding and claiming others haven't. Edit: TMPikachu; I didn't intend to imply that the only reason the Mongols were so effective was numbers. But they did have numbers on their side, since as you yourself note, they were controlling the largest empire the world had seen. They were also brilliant tacticians, though, and their tactics were well-suited to the admittedly slower movement of the Europeans. I was mostly trying to point out that it wasn't some inherently great quality of Mongol horses or technology, or similarly inferior European's, but more the numbers, and the (as I didn't, but you did point out) tactics of the Mongols, which took both technologies into consideration and worked to provide the Mongols with every advantage. But if the Mongols had been stupid and tried to attack the Europeans head-on in melee, they'd have been slaughtered in huge numbers. I'm not trying to denigrate the Mongols of the time. They were brilliant warriors and led by a brilliant tactician. But they weren't technologically superior. Just smart enough to realize how their advantages could be used to maximize their opponent's disadvantages.
TMPikachu 09-02-04, 11:10 AM	I think he was agreeing with you... At least it sounded like that to me. *oh, ok Thorak, i misunderstood you. I was kinda confused as how a historian could have said such things, but it was just a misconception. There was actually a battle where alot of Mongols engaged head on with the chain mailed knights. Heavy casualties suffered on both sides. Knights were already stuck full of arrows though. 'Storm From the East' is a good book to read on the Mongols. It focuses less on individual battles than the wide scope of things. Only the biggest battles are given detail, most 'minor' ones just show the results.
Bartleby_GoC 09-02-04, 01:33 PM	Ok, to wrestle this somewhat towards the topic ;) SOmeone mentioned that leather armor is hard leather. Isn't that hide armor? If not, what's the difference? Per SRD: Half-plate 600 gp +7 0 –7 20 ft 50 lb. Full plate 1,500 gp +8 1 –6 20 ft 50 lb. Note that half and full plate are identical in weight? However, the dex for full plate is better. D&D does reflect that properly fitted full plate is more maneuverable. ;) Bartleby
Thorak 09-02-04, 02:03 PM	Ok, to wrestle this somewhat towards the topic ;) SOmeone mentioned that leather armor is hard leather. Isn't that hide armor? If not, what's the difference? Oh yeah, the topic. I always thought Hide armour was, essentially, the hides of really thick-skinned animals, like bears, elephants, rhinoceroses, etc. Leather armour is cuirboille, boiled leather (usually cow) treated with beeswax to harden it.
Bartleby_GoC 09-02-04, 03:15 PM	Ok. Here the reason for my above mentioned belief (probably would have helped if I'd included it inthe above-mentioning post): Leather is just a little bit better and a little bit heavier than padded. A supple leather version of padded would meet this expectation with the more durable material. The hardened leather "plate" would have properties of plate and leather. It's hard, so it's more likely to restrict movement. It needs to be thicker and requires a rigging of belts and buckles to keep on, both of which add to weight. (in researching LARP armor, the sources I found stated that fairly thick leather was required for the cuirboille process) Its place as both the most protective of the non-metallic armors and lightest of the speed-reducing armors fits this description. Armor made from exotic animals would be more expensive than cow leather in a typical setting. However, hide is cheaper. Thinner leather that retain enough durability would take some work, and be more valuable in luxury items, like boots and capes. This would make it a bit more expensive. Plus, you need to use bigger pieces (like making clothing, you cut out the shape from a big piece, with hide, you need smaller "plates" laced together, the plates can be fit into a smaller area) and thus must skin bigger cows. You'd need a whole cowhide to make a suit of supple leather, while the leftovers might make half a suit of hide. That's my arguement. Not sure if it's correct, especially as I've never actually made cuirboille leather. Bartleby
TMPikachu 09-02-04, 05:55 PM	Hide armor is more primitive, using already very thick hides. Leather armour is treated 'normal' leather (like from cows). Laquered probably. I would normally think leather lamellar would be leather armor, but in D&D there's 'leather scale' armor, which is +3/+6 from Oriental adventures. *I've heard the process of making cuirboilli (or however it's spelled) shrinks it pretty drastically, so maybe you need to start with a big piece, but end up with something much smaller and more dense.
Thorak 09-02-04, 06:40 PM	My PHB hath returned from the depths of the car my wife took with her to work. It specifically says that leather armor is stiffened by boiling in oil, at least the big plates, so it basically is cuirboille. And hide, apparently, has changed slightly from 2nd edition, in that it's not necessarily unusually thick-skinned leathers, but many layers of leather. But elephant leather would still probably count as hide armour. Either way; you're using less leather per layer for hide, but there's multiple layers. Which explains some of the cost. And I didn't mean to imply all hide armours were from exotic animals, bears for instance were used for hide armour in 2nd edition. I just used some exotic possibilities to make my point; unless you're somewhere elephants live, you're going to pay through the nose for hide armour made from elephant leather.
TMPikachu 09-02-04, 10:00 PM	I think Oriental Adventures has rules for armor made specifically out of rhino or elephant. a tangent question: you know how there's 'magic metals' like mithril and adamantium? Are there 'magic' leathers?
Thorak 09-02-04, 10:39 PM	a tangent question: you know how there's 'magic metals' like mithril and adamantium? Are there 'magic' leathers? Dragonscale is almost a leather, though the outside is covered with scales. Beyond that, not to my knowledge. There's usually scaly or insectile critters that make better armours like that to bother hunting down weird and wonderful leather sources.
Ssussunriyh 09-03-04, 12:51 AM	Only the breastplate portion of leather armor was hardened cuir boilli, the rest was flexible leather. (Think of a full suit of motorcycle gear, with a "vest" of hardened leather chest- and back-plates. It would all be saddle-quality leather; not the thin, chinsy goatskin stuff you might find at a fashion boutique.) Studded leather would be un-hardened leather of the same quality, with studs or rivets of iron, steel, bronze, or brass. Hide armor has multiple layers, or is made from the hides of thick-skinned animals with the fur left on.
danielinthewolvesden 09-03-04, 01:10 AM	Being in the SCA, and knowing guys that make the stuff and wear the stuff, here are a few facts for you. 1. Leather armour would be thick- like a very thick belt- 1/4' or more- in most places and flexible in others. 2, Studded leather is more likely to be Cuirboilli- for the breastblate, greaves and vambraces. Rest would be flexible. Yes, some stuts and metal attachments were added, mostly for show, but sometimes for a bit of improvement in places. There is a HUGE arguement going on if Cuirboilli was hardened by boiling in water or wax. Boiling wax is VERY dangerous. I am in the water camp meself. Frankly- nobody knows, but what little documentation there is seems to support the "water" camp. Both work. Just call it "improved leather". 3. Scale was obsolete before the medieval period- even the Romans only used it for ceremonial purposes. The Byzantines did have some Cataphracts who wore it, but that was a weird bunch of guys... (super heavy calvary that were amoured in scale all the way, and even the horse, with a long two-handed "lance". The horse couldn't gallop!) However, brigantine would have just about those stats, so call it that... Brigantine is the best cheap armour. 4. Half-plate is actually a 'after gunpowder" armour- it was cut down full plate. It was very easy to move in.* What WotC calls half-plate was really "platemail" or "mail and plate" ie mail used as the backing for plates, so that joints weren't needed. It was clumsy & heavy, and noisy as all hell. The stats are about right. 5. Real Full plate is easy to move in, and the best money can buy. I'd say that if you bought "masterwork" then added "custom made" you should reduce the armour check penalty by another 1 (at least) and allow an extra point of Dex to be used. Yes- it would be very expensive- if anything, it's too cheap in the game! So say that "custom made" adds another 500- 1000gps to the cost, and then it has those stats. 6. There is another type of armour not listed- improved mail. That would be usually be riveted mail. The cost was 3X the cost of normal mail- at least- but it'd add an extra point of armour. * If you wanted stats for real "half plate" I'd say it'd be medium armour, +6, and maxe dex of 4, and check of -2 or -3. Cost would be around 1000gps. In other words, a better breastplate- but real expensive.
TMPikachu 09-03-04, 01:23 AM	There's sort of rules for half-plate in the way you described it. Oriental Adventures: Half-armour is what they call it. It's essentially a breastplate (as in a plate to guard the torsoe) with small (or no) pauldrons and short (if none) skirting. It had the same stats as chain shirt. Pretty much a lighter breastplate. Not exactly better though. I look at the D&D armours as general guidelines anyways, so 'true' halfplate would just follow breastplate rules. On your super-custom-plate-armour... I think +2 dex would be too much. That means you can play hop scotch in your armor while juggling three babies, can a man really do that? I'm just afraid of over-compensating for the old 'clumsy armor' misconception of plate armor. A reduced armor check penaltyt seems to be more fitting. Brigandine is the worst armor available in D&D (also found in Oriental adventures) It's scale armor, but with less dexterity. Ouch. I would think brigandine would've had the same stats as lamellar (which had the same stats as breastplate) being that the only difference was that brigandine was cloth covered (asides from that, they're both little metal scales laced together) Personally, I think the D&D armour system could be more detailed. If I could've made the rules, there'd be two ways to determine armor stats first: what is it? scale, plate, lamellar, leather, etc. second: How much does it cover? Vests, bodysuits, torso guards with pauldrons and skirting, etc. Kinda like how Chain Armour=chain down your sleeves n' knickers and Chain shirt= Chain tee shirt. Exept apply that to everything. Then to give rules, they should make two sorts of armor. One: The crap noone wears: spint and his friends halfplate and chain, they total up to 7 dex/ac two: The stuff everyone wears: Chainmail's much more popular (and sexy) younger sister Chain shirt, halfplate's huskier, more manly brother full plate and friends, who all add up to 8 dex/ac Make a list that goes from 7ac/0dex to 1ac/7dex and do the same, added to 8, for the stuff people will always wear above the crap. Then add names apropriately. Or the rules should be vague. Just have a loose description of 'what gives ac#/dex# ?' so people can be more creative. Or maybe, just maybe. Show what the armor REALLY looks like! OA did this, but the PHB's still got that 'it's fantasy if it looks implausably lame' art. Hurrah, I've hijacked my own topic. I'm allowed to do that, right?
bitnine 09-03-04, 02:54 AM	On your super-custom-plate-armour... I think +2 dex would be too much. That means you can play hop scotch in your armor while juggling three babies, can a man really do that?Yeah, it's not like you're going to see people doing backflips in plate. Or will you? ;)
Cold Zero 09-03-04, 04:49 AM	First of all I think it´s fun to see everyone has been doing they´re homework on medieval weapons. Good work! I have a few things to add: The ringmail part. In 2nd ed AD&D arms and equipment guide ringmail was described and gave you a base AC of 7. This guide also gave history facts about the items in it and is very interesting. The plate armor weight stuff. I live in Europe and we have some old castles here wich have armories with real armor in them. I have worn plate and, with the right training, can imagine fighting in it. Studded leather. I guess that during hundreds of years of warfare somebody must have tried some version of studded leather. That it wasn´t used by an whole army or unit doesn´t mean some Goth didn´t wake up some day in his tent and figured he would try something new. Also there are no eye witnesses, only books, so don´t think because it isn´t in hte books it didn´t happen. About weapon weight and armor during combat. The most important thing is training. If a knight was going to fight in plate armor with a 10 pound+ sword he was going to train wearing plate and his sword. They didn´t have gyms back then. Train as you fight is not a new concept. I am a cop and have had extensive training in riot squads and CQB. During the trainings for the riot squad i wore my gear (4 pound helmet, 6 pound upper body protection, 6 pounds of leg protection, a 5 pound shield and a 3 pound baton, and 3 pound boots each) the whole time (4 weeks max). We had to swim, climb, run, take obstacle courses, and most importantly fight, in it because that was th gear we were gonna fight in for real. As part of a riot squad i have been involved in multiple riots and have worn the above for more then 14 hours in a row, only taking of the helmet and gloves for eating. You are so used to working in your gear you don´t notice it anymore. During one football riot our squad was surrounded and we fought non-stop for more then an hour. Afterward, when the adrenaline leaves your body, you only notice how fatigued you actualy are. Same for the CQB part. That training was a month of doing everything (including many nights sleeping) in a 16 pound weighing bullet-proof vest and a MP5 in your hands (no sling allowed) and more then 15 pounds of other weapons and equipment. You get used to it and don´t even notice it after a while. Just imagine having to run with a 50 pound battering ram for 3 miles and then break down a heavy wooden door with it. After a couple of times you are used to it, trust me I know. So imagine a knight who has been training since his childhood and who is up against adversaries who are equipt the same (same problems thus). It was his everyday job so when battle came he was ready and fit for it. If he wasn´t he would lose and in combat second place means death. I do really want to applaud everyone who has done rechearch. Have fun!
Ssussunriyh 09-03-04, 05:16 AM	I can't help but be reminded of a poster I once saw; it was a variant of "The Evolution of Man" lineup... The last example in the progression was a flabby, balding, myopic little guy hunched over a keyboard and squinting into a computer monitor. The caption read: "Something, somewhere, went horribly wrong..." Just because a (hopelessly) average present-day human being can't do it doesn't mean it couldn't ever be done.
TMPikachu 09-03-04, 07:42 AM	Yeah, it's not like you're going to see people doing backflips in plate. Or will you? ;) I've heard of people doing backflips or cartwheels or something like that. I still think they'd have a hard (or impossible) time hop-scotching with the babies.
Thorak 09-03-04, 09:39 AM	1. Leather armour would be thick- like a very thick belt- 1/4' or more- in most places and flexible in others. Except that the PHB explicitly describes it as identical to cuirboille. 2, Studded leather is more likely to be Cuirboilli- for the breastblate, greaves and vambraces. Rest would be flexible. Yes, some stuts and metal attachments were added, mostly for show, but sometimes for a bit of improvement in places. There is a HUGE arguement going on if Cuirboilli was hardened by boiling in water or wax. Boiling wax is VERY dangerous. I am in the water camp meself. Frankly- nobody knows, but what little documentation there is seems to support the "water" camp. Both work. Just call it "improved leather". Again, not according to the PHB. Which explicitly says that studded leather is not made from hardened leather. As for the water/wax debate, I think I read something somewhere about one theory being that beeswax was used to treat the leather, and then it was boiled in water. Though I have no idea how accuracte that may be, or the purpose of the beeswax treatment.
Bartleby_GoC 09-03-04, 11:31 AM	GURPS uses a two-stat armor system. Every piece has a DR (damage resistance) and a PD (passive defense). DR is the amount of damage absorbed by the armor. IIRC, full plate has a DR of 6, leather is 2. PD is a measure fo the armor's ability to deflect blows. GURPS also uses a defense roll. The attacker rolls to see if he has a chance to hit, the defender tried to dodge, block, or parry the blow. PD is a bonus to the defender's roll. Most armor has PD of 1-4. The system also has rules for flexible armor. Realisticly, chain armor should not protect against crushing blows as well as it does agains slashing ones. My little sister is a heavy fighter in SCA (yes, she can, and has, kicked my ass with a bamboo sword, in fact she taught me the basics of swordsmanship). I've seen the chain-shaped bruises she ends up with after a battle. Chain is also less efefctive vs. piercing attacks. It's got all those holes... D&D has no real provision for that. Why bring this to a D&D board? We've been discussing the effectiveness of armor and I figured I'd a share another approach that favors realism a bit more. It's doesn't fit into D&D (not currently) but maybe it will inspire someone to work up a reasonable house rule. Bartleby
Tevandel Surefacet 09-03-04, 11:40 AM	The big problem I always had with GURPS combat is that it takes so loooong to resolve anything. It seems that there is a tradeoff between somewhat realistic combat and time to run the combat. Although I do like the DR/PD difference that GURPS has, I have been considering using the armor DR rules from UA but have not yet tried them. On topic, it sounds to me like "studded" leather armor is mostly an invention of D&D to fit into the hole in the light armor table between leather and chain armor.
Cathon 09-03-04, 09:06 PM	1st edition had some crazy modifiers on what weapons worked against what armors. Nobody ever used them. One could perhaps modify the armor as DR rules for slashing/bludgeoning and piercing weapons... I have worn full length chain for a period of time, it is very difficult armor. The entire weight of the armor is supported by your shoulders. The reason plate armor is easier to move in is that it is designed like football pads. Separate pieces forming a cohesive whole so the weight is more evenly distributed. As mentioned the main problem with plate armor was not the weight compared to other armors, it was the heat. Not a problem during the mini ice age in europe, but very tough during the crusades.
wereooze 09-03-04, 09:25 PM	Ah, the misconceptions of arms & armour continue.... Studded Leather: Only in gloves, and then mostly for gladiatorial combat in Roman games. Studded leather during the middle ages was primarily decorative. I wont say somebody didnt invent and use studded leather armour to great success, but IF they did, no functional sets survived the sands of time. Viking Swords: Layered steel? Yes. But also the blade was constructed in three parts: the center post & tang (of harder steel), and either blade edge (of softer steel), the three would then be forged together. This made for a very nice blade, which could hold an edge, and remain stiff enough for prolonged whacking. But they relatively heavy, and the viking peoples progressed into Swedes, russians, and whathave you... Long Sword vs. Plate-Maile: I hate the 'longswords were used against plate armour' story. swords were never designed for use on plate-maile. After the adaption of plated steel the armies of europe started using warhammers (with a cheap bronze head and a wooden shaft, they were not very heavy despite popular misconception), axes, maces, flails, and studded clubs. swords were reserved for lightly armoured foes. The coup-de-gras of a plate-mail wearing foe was delivered with a dagger, which typically had a triangular blade to better be shoved betwixt steel plating. Katanas were super-swords that cut through everything: This is just stupid. Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles is the reason american students are so clueless about such things. The katan, while the "soul of bushido" was actually the third weapon used in open combat. The first parts of battle done with bow & arrow, and the first weapon used was the long-bladed spera, the naginata. The katan was a primary weapon against unarmoured opponents (like impolite peasants). Swords weight 30lbs and armour weighed 80lbs!: Um, no... a sword weighed about four (stainless steel is both heavier and more brittle than a carbon-steel), and armour (plate reinforced chainmaile)was in the 60 lbs range. When fully armed and armoured, a 14th century calvary soldier carried 75 pounds of gear (when weighed by some genius at a SCA event). By contrast a US marine carries a 70lb backpack + rifle. Odd armour throwback?: Five centuries after the use of cannon in warfare, the wearing of platemaile continued! As recently as WW1, German trench-fighters fought with maces, axes, and short swords (in addition to service pistols and rifles) and wore steel chest/back protectors that hung off the soldiers and could be cut away quickly for faster running. (The phantoms assassins wear this exact armour in the incredibly bad movie League Of Extraordinary Gentelmen).
TMPikachu 09-03-04, 10:46 PM	I have worn full length chain for a period of time, it is very difficult armor. The entire weight of the armor is supported by your shoulders. The reason plate armor is easier to move in is that it is designed like football pads. Separate pieces forming a cohesive whole so the weight is more evenly distributed. . Wear a built then. Alot of chain mail armours were worn with belts to distribute weight to the hips. Another drawback of plate would be how long it took to put on. Also the time and expenses to make it. And mighty as it is, an arrow will still pierce it :p
Dark Cyril 09-03-04, 11:03 PM	To go back to a previous post (I'm very sorry in advance to everyone for this), an often overlooked fact is that the word "bushido" actually meant "the way of the bow and horse" instead of what it has been construed to mean in Hollywood. And the katana is not the perfect weapon. As it has been said many times previously, it was not made to cut through armor. The katana was a blade made to cut through flesh and cloth, not steel. A samurai would stand no chance against a knight in plate mail, the sword just couldn't take the force of the blade striking against the armor. That is unless the samurai would use his bow.
Watchman 09-04-04, 09:26 AM	As many have said, "studded leather" would in most cases mean a sort of "cheap and cheerful" briganine. Such armor, made by sewing suitable pieces of metal, horn, wood or whatever between layers of clotch or leather (usually the former) and/or fastening the pieces onto the outer layer by rivets (whose exposed heads then consitute the "studs"), could in its simpler forms be made and maintained by the troopers themselves. The D&D "studded leather" would be on the cheap and simple end; on the other end were suits of quality iron or steel plates covered with sumptuous velvet, silk or similar and worn by high-ranking officers or noblemen (Chinese and Korean officers commonly used this type), magnificient in appereance and quite protective. Brigandine made of large, overlapping and relatively heavy metal plates such as these is usually referred to as "coat-of-plates" - it seems to be an extrapolation of the same manufacturing principle as the venerable scale armor, but rather better. European men-at-arms used it as a "transitional" body armor over their mail hauberks before true solid plate came around, and good brigandine was long a cheap and comfortable alternative to plate cuirasses. The Ottoman Turks also sometimes made their mail-and-plate (aka "composite armor"; more flexible than true plate, not quite as protective, no D&D equivalent IMHO) and laminated (aka "banded"; the same construction as in the well-known Roman lorica segmentata, D&D badly underestimates this type IMHO) armors as "brigandines", which is to say with clotch covering, and many European brigandines were actually laminate in construction. Mail could also be made in this fashion, usually incorporating a built-in padding and and outer layer of luxury clotch; the Egyptian mamelukes who developed this type called it khazaghand, the Europeans used the plainly derived term jazerant. Really, brigandine construction doesn't require anything else than adding an outer layer of clotch or leather, usually for decoration but also as weather-proofing and in some cases as the attachement for the plates; solid plate is about the only type of metal armor it wasn't done to at some point. I have, however, also seen references to "true" studded leather defenses, mostly in the context of Antique armies. The Babylonian/Assyrian/whatever leather cape mentioned previously is one; Roman legionaires had a groin defense consisting of metal strips hung from their belts and reinforced with metal studs; and similarly reinforced bands of leather strip sometimes hung around the necks and over the breasts of Roman and Byzantine (and undountly other) war-horses. It would seem that the purpose of such arrangements was to catch, drag and slow down an incoming blow, where the metal insets serve to make it more difficult to cut the leather and weigh it so as to better absorb the energy of the blow - spear-point and the like would anyway go right in between the strips and the studs. Doesn't seem to have been overly popular though, and I'd imagine its weight-protection ratio was fairly low overall.
TMPikachu 09-04-04, 12:09 PM	If you want a D&D equivilant to the armor you just described as being worn by the Ottoman Turks, turn to Oriental Adventures. The stats for 'Great Armour' (which is essentially heavy lamellar) is less protective than full plate, but allows more mobility (lower AC, higher Dex)
PurpleFlame 09-04-04, 12:53 PM	I can see -densely- studded leather armor being useful in some situations, though, frankly, more in the 'rapier and buckler' situation than the 'mace and longsword' situation. The first thing I'd like to say is that you wouldn't cut or chop with a rapier. You thrust with it. Guess why it's so thin? And as that's how you use it, studded leather would be useless, since the studs would only direct the thrusts toward the soft leather.
Thorak 09-04-04, 12:53 PM	Long Sword vs. Plate-Maile: I hate the 'longswords were used against plate armour' story. swords were never designed for use on plate-maile. After the adaption of plated steel the armies of europe started using warhammers (with a cheap bronze head and a wooden shaft, they were not very heavy despite popular misconception), axes, maces, flails, and studded clubs. swords were reserved for lightly armoured foes. The coup-de-gras of a plate-mail wearing foe was delivered with a dagger, which typically had a triangular blade to better be shoved betwixt steel plating. In fact, swords were used against armor. That's one reason for the wider-bladed thicker 'broadsword', to be able to take the beating. Swords were effective in two ways; they focused the blow along an edge, making for a heavy impact when they hit, directing more force over less area than a hammer head (but not, say, a pick or spike), and they made for good pry-tools, to bend plates out and open holes. I'm not saying they were as good or better than any other weapon against armour, but they were used against it. Katanas were super-swords that cut through everything: This is just stupid. Teenage Mutant Ninja turtles is the reason american students are so clueless about such things. The katan, while the "soul of bushido" was actually the third weapon used in open combat. The first parts of battle done with bow & arrow, and the first weapon used was the long-bladed spera, the naginata. The katan was a primary weapon against unarmoured opponents (like impolite peasants). This is incorrect. Many samurai picked a favoured weapon. And if a samurai favoured the katana, they tended not to bother with naginata or yari, or many other weapons, not to the same extent. The reverse is also true; some samurai made names for wielding naginata in melee throughout battles. And katana, very certainly, were used against other samurai. Even if we didn't have the countless paintings of armed samurai with katana confronting each other, and tales to the same, I've trained in a martial art (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu) that contains within it 9 separate systems, 2 of which are very specifically armed samurai combat styles, and both are intended to fight against samurai armour. Not that it cut through armour like butter or anything stupid. But samurai armour had many weaknesses; it had to be wielded by it's wearer as much as a weapon to be effective. Katana could easily sever arteries under the arm, on the inside-back of the legs, behind the knees, along the neck, etc, etc. Katana, or indeed any weapon, could be used against an armoured samurai. It just involves exposing and hitting the unarmoured bits.
simen_88 09-04-04, 02:42 PM	Yeah, but if we don't remember that at all, it is not true. Part 3 of the Hitchhiker's Guide explains this in detail.
jasper 09-05-04, 12:21 AM	You are aware that it's possible to ride a draft horse, right? ... For the record, I am wrapping up my Honours BA in history this year, with a focus on the Medieval and Early Modern periods. I've done extensive research into medieval arms and armour, mostly from my own personal interest, but I do know how to do research. For that matter, here's a web source; Clicky (http://www.classicalfencing.com/horsetraining.shtml) And I never said the medieval warhorses were draft horses, or were just as big. I said they were bigger than normal riding horses, and that modern draft horses are the modern descendents. There's been 500 years of selective breeding that may have made them even bigger. ... .... Yes but when you say draft horse people = Clydes dales. kiss kiss kiss for the link. You win the Marvel No prize. Thanks. I really mean it I get mad when knight horses with draft. Could you pm or post here. Some of titles on the subject which you respect. Or just drop ship me your library. :D
Willie the Duck 09-05-04, 02:27 AM	In fact, swords were used against armor. That's one reason for the wider-bladed thicker 'broadsword', to be able to take the beating. Swords were effective in two ways; they focused the blow along an edge, making for a heavy impact when they hit, directing more force over less area than a hammer head (but not, say, a pick or spike), and they made for good pry-tools, to bend plates out and open holes. I'm not saying they were as good or better than any other weapon against armour, but they were used against it. Yes, longswords did get thicker and thicker to keep up with heavier armor, but much of their effectiveness continued to be reduced, which is why weapons like the pike and warhammer (which frankly is a pick, for all practical purposes), re-entered the battlefield as effective weapons. It isn't that swords became useless, they just lost much of the advantage that kept them in the forfront of weaponry for the past 900 years or so.
danielinthewolvesden 09-05-04, 07:24 AM	I have worn full length chain for a period of time, it is very difficult armor. The entire weight of the armor is supported by your shoulders. . Completly the opposite- chain is easy to move in, and comfy. You need to wear a belt with it, and a padded gambeson under. A heavy sweatshirt will do... TMPikachu "On your super-custom-plate-armour... I think +2 dex would be too much. That means you can play hop scotch in your armor while juggling three babies, can a man really do that?" Umm, no, that allows for a Dex of 14. Doing that is a dex of 20 or higher. The worst part about wearing full plate is that it gets VERY hot inside in any warm weather. Very. :D
FriendoftheDork 09-05-04, 08:42 AM	an interesting discussion. But I think I'll keep st leather around in any case, as it looks cool in drawings ;) But what I'm really curious about are banded mail and splint mail, where when and why? or are these just inventions of D&D?
Another Gnome 09-05-04, 08:59 AM	You know, if you have a suit of armor made today and someone can actually wear it, even it it was ridiculous and impractical in combat, it is "realistic" and "historically accurate" thereafter. Should anyone disagree, go ahead and ask the guys crafting genuine 21st-century armor replicas 500 years from now. :D
TMPikachu 09-05-04, 11:05 AM	an interesting discussion. But I think I'll keep st leather around in any case, as it looks cool in drawings ;) But what I'm really curious about are banded mail and splint mail, where when and why? or are these just inventions of D&D? banded was real, just doesn't look like what's portrayed in the PHB. Banded is the lorica segmentum of the roman legionairres. There were also some varieties of more flexible plate armor in Europe, and I believe some asian armor designs would fall into banded too. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/anime.gif http://www.szlachta.org/obraz/husarz.jpg as for splint... to my knowledge it was only used for bracers and shin guards. Torsoe guards would be closer to lamellar than long solid strips that went top to bottom (which is just kinda dumb, walk around with a yard stick stuffed down your shirt) But in OA, they describe brigandine as 'lighter splint'. Then again, that could just be to justify it's total crap stats.
Cardinal Teplin 09-05-04, 12:38 PM	Right... the basic problem stretches all the way back to 1st edition, when people tried to put all the armour from all the games into some kind of sensible order. Unfortunately, they had armour from everything from Roman times to early renaissance, and it was a mess. The solution was to make armour categories - leather, studded leather, etc. all the way up to plate armour. These armours were abstractions of grades of armour. For example - chain mail. Was it a chain shirt, a shirt and coif, did it cover arms, legs, etc? All chain mail. Leather armour included hide, and so on. Padded armour was basically the stuff worn under heavier armours, but also included some qulilt armours. Then people kept on adding more. Hippo and rhino hide armour got introduced, and people liked the idea of using the hide of fantasy beasts. People wanted plate armour, which was never in the game before, because that's what knights were depicted as wearing. (the original plate mail was mail made of overlapping plates, was extremely obscure, and was explicitly NOT the plate armour used by european knights, which came much later). Thus came plate armour, field plate, and full plate (jousting armour). Splint mail was redefined half-a-dozen times, and brigandine appeared, disappeared reappeared and disappeared again. None of them are supposed to be one type of Studded leather was a term for leather reinforced by metal, typically metal discs a few inches across, held in place with clips, thread or studs. There aren't many historical examples. Ringmail did exist, and was used by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings, 1066. It consisted of metal rings sewn onto leather. The rings didn't interlock, but were quite seperate. The point of both of these armours is to spread the force of a blow, across the entire ring, or across the entire disc, and to stop a surface penetration, which cause the armour to catch. And yes, knight's horses of the late medeival period were extremely large slow and heavy, of which the Clydsdales are probably the closest modern equivalent. Or so my local horse breeders association assures me. They mainly do racing horses, so they could well be wrong. But the main point is that these terms are simplifications of the real world, which is sufficiently large and varied enough throughout history that you aren't going to get a 'right answer' for what studded leather is, because it isn't a real-world category. Its simplification for our game.
simen_88 09-05-04, 03:29 PM	I have read this thread since the beginning and find it very interesting. I've only got one question: What's brigandine, and what's lamellar?
Dark Cyril 09-05-04, 03:44 PM	In fact, swords were used against armor Yes, according to what I've read from John Clements: A knight's sword was typically a one-handed weapon originally intended specifically for use with a shield. Their blades are wide and fairly thin, but rigid, wiht chisellike edges intentionally designed designed for cutting through mail armor and deep into flesh and bone wihth a quick, forceful blow. The same article in the Dragon Magazine says: Although the medieval sword and shield combination was fairly common, longer blades usable in two hands wre in wedespread use from about 1250 to roughly 1600 in Europe. When we talk about medieval European longswords or war-swords (or ever greatswords), we are dealing with a single uniform style. Some swords had wide, flat blades with parallel edges well suited to powerful cuts. Later, swords specifically designed for facing heavier armor, had narrower much more rigid blades of diamond or hexagonal cross-sections that tapered to hard, sharp points. They were used to bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They could also be employed to thrust like short spears or alsm like warhammers, yet they were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents. He then goes on to say: Surprisingly, the longsword or greatsword is arguably a more complex weapon than the katana. It has two edges that can be uses, as well as a versatile crossguard and pommel permitting a variety of specialized techniques. Another element to consider is that European swords could be used in "half sword" techniques where the second hand grips the blade itself to wield the weapon in bashing, deflecting, binding, and trapping as a pole-axe or short spear can be used. This was especially effective in fighting against plate armor. So, whoever posted that they would use warhammers against armor instead of swords (I forget who, sorry) can see that they wouldn't need the them when the swords were versatile enough to act as these types of weapons. Note: All of this information comes from John Clements Article "Samurai vs. Knight" in Dragon Magazine Issue #323.
Ssussunriyh 09-05-04, 03:53 PM	Originally posted by simen 88: I have read this thread since the beginning and find it very interesting. I've only got one question: What's brigandine, and what's lamellar? Brigandine is a series of small metal plates riveted in between two layers of soft leather or cloth. Unlike scale armor, the plates do not overlap. A brigandine "jack" (i.e., vest) was often worn over top of a chainmail shirt or hauberk. It was lighter and far cheaper than a breastplate, and could be repaired by the average man-at-arms in the field. Lamellar armor evolved from scale armor. It consists of small, overlapping plates of metal laced together or stitched to a backing of leather or cloth. It is similar to brigandine and splinted mail, but isn't sandwiched between layers of cloth or leather like the other two types of armor. (One close-up picture of lamellar showed it as rectangular or oval plates of metal with holes punched in them, and cords like shoelaces threaded through the holes to tie them together - no cloth or leather backing was shown in the picture.)
Thorak 09-05-04, 05:42 PM	An addendum to Ssussunriyh's post; Lamellar wasn't necessarily made from metal plates. Many types of samurai armour, for instance, are of lamellar construction but the plates are hardened and laquered leather or wood, to make the armour lighter than if it were metal. Here's a pic of cuirbolle leather lamellar armour, both showing a non-metal material, and hopefully giving those not familiar with it an idea of what it's like; Clicky (http://www.theinnerbailey.com/lamella1.htm) And Dark_Cyril; unfortunately, Dragon magazine articles aren't known as being fonts of historical accuracy. In this case, though, he's pretty close, enough for me not to nitpick. Swords, maces, picks, and hammers were used against different armours, for different reasons. Swords were good at cutting or piercing through mail, and acting as prybars to bend out a plate to create a weakness. Maces and hammers were used to try and bend plates inward, hopefully either making a joint immovable, or actually cutting the opponent's skin with the sharply bent inside edges created, that would cut through the padding underneath. Picks were meant to punch holes through just about anything. All were useful, but for different purposes and in different ways. I won't try and argue that any one or the other was superior in practice, but the sword was most often used simply because of the cult image of the sword as the superior weapon in Medieval Europe.
FriendoftheDork 09-05-04, 08:41 PM	banded was real, just doesn't look like what's portrayed in the PHB. Banded is the lorica segmentum of the roman legionairres. There were also some varieties of more flexible plate armor in Europe, and I believe some asian armor designs would fall into banded too. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3505/anime.gif http://www.szlachta.org/obraz/husarz.jpg as for splint... to my knowledge it was only used for bracers and shin guards. Torsoe guards would be closer to lamellar than long solid strips that went top to bottom (which is just kinda dumb, walk around with a yard stick stuffed down your shirt) But in OA, they describe brigandine as 'lighter splint'. Then again, that could just be to justify it's total crap stats. ok, thanks for trying to answer. I suspected that banded mail was roman, but the picture of the replika I've seen is just a shirt of overlapping plates, nothing at all like the banded mail in D&D. I'm still wondering about splint mail, it looks silly, it sucks, and I can find no historical references of it at all! BTW the last pic was that half plate (not D&D plate and mail)?
Sae Cael Oanar 09-05-04, 08:57 PM	where does hollywood make it out like you can barely move in heavy armor, i see quite the opposite, people moving much more easily than you could in reality. a night could easily be wearing 50-100 pounds of gear. a big strong guy can take that, but the truth is, if you fell off your horse in the battle field, odds are you were killed before you got up.
Thorak 09-05-04, 09:19 PM	where does hollywood make it out like you can barely move in heavy armor, i see quite the opposite, people moving much more easily than you could in reality. A typical knight's gear, including armour, weighed about the same as modern combat gear with full pack, somewhere around 70 pounds. With the advantage of having that weight evenly distributed across the body and tied on separately, without having the bulk of it drag on the shoulders. Easily within the range of mobility for people. The Hollywood (and popular) misconception regarding knights and their tendency to become incapable of mounting their horses and/or being incapable of standing up after being unhorsed comes from 2 sources, neither related to actual combat. The first being specialized jousting armour, which was ridiculously heavy and not designed for mobility, only to take frontal hits from a lance. The second being that, in the later medieval period, more and more nobles were able to live soft lives and send underling knights to fight in their place for duties of war to their liege. But enjoyed jousting, which was relatively safe and made them look sort of heroic, in their eyes. But they were often grossly fat and out of shape, and thus couldn't lift their normal armour, let alone jousting armour. But they weren't fighters, either. a night could easily be wearing 50-100 pounds of gear. a big strong guy can take that, but the truth is, if you fell off your horse in the battle field, odds are you were killed before you got up. Incorrect. That's the point of armour, to give you that 10 seconds at most you need to get to your feet when surrounded by enemy footsoldiers. While you were more vulnerable, you were by no means an easy target. And you weren't any slower than an unarmoured person would be getting up; any slowness due to the armour had been trained out of you, and you'd put on muscle to help wear it. The same way no modern bowman, save those who specifically train for it for years, can draw a replica English Longbow, with a draw weight of ~90 lbs. Just because we don't train with bows that require that much strength; modern composite materials and technology doesn't make it necessary.
Dark Cyril 09-05-04, 10:22 PM	And Dark_Cyril; unfortunately, Dragon magazine articles aren't known as being fonts of historical accuracy. In this case, though, he's pretty close, enough for me not to nitpick. Swords, maces, picks, and hammers were used against different armours, for different reasons. Swords were good at cutting or piercing through mail, and acting as prybars to bend out a plate to create a weakness. Maces and hammers were used to try and bend plates inward, hopefully either making a joint immovable, or actually cutting the opponent's skin with the sharply bent inside edges created, that would cut through the padding underneath. Picks were meant to punch holes through just about anything. All were useful, but for different purposes and in different ways. I won't try and argue that any one or the other was superior in practice, but the sword was most often used simply because of the cult image of the sword as the superior weapon in Medieval Europe. Sadly enough you're right. The only reason that I used this guys stuff is the fact that he's studied it for 24 years and taught in 6 countries, not to mention is the president of ARMA (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts). Obviously there were weapons suited to different uses, I'm not gonna argue with you there. They were suited to the different societies however. Each country had it's own idea of a knight and thus armed them and trained them a little bit differently. The same can be said of the time period that they lived under. But anyway, we've gotten way off topic. What was this thread originally about? lol.
TMPikachu 09-07-04, 04:17 PM	It's perfectly fine. I started it, it hasn't gone off topic but rather evolved. On my picture of the winged Hussar (it's the one with wings). It's not 'officially' half plate, which came around the time guns got more popular. If I were to give it D&D rules, I would say it's breastplate. On splint: Splint totally sucks and noone would ever have worn it. But it did exist. From what I know, arm and shin guards could be made with strips of metal running parallel to the limb. I've never seen an example of splint being used to guard the torsoe though. The examples with splint arm/shin guards are wearing lamellar or brigandine torso guards. So This thread is now pretty much the 'Talk about Armor in D&D or how to apply it to D&D' thread
wolfhawk 09-08-04, 05:45 PM	First lets start with Brigandine Sometimes also known as "Court armor" because other forms of armor were often outlawed at court. Wearing armor in the presence of the king/prince/duke /grand-high-muckety-muck implied that you believed your life was in danger and or you were expecting to fight. Since you were supposedly under the protection of the court, they took offence at this and either killed you or made you take off the armor. Brigandine evolved (all armors evolve) from a desire to stay alive without showing armor by hiding it under expensive looking clothes. The outer layers were often then, expensive and colorfull fabrics with thin plates sewn betwen those and the inner lining. Since colors were restricted by rank and/or office, this made for a way to disguise the armor. Additionally, by keeping the plates from ever touching each other, there was no metal on metal "clink" to give away the presence of the armor. The thin plates in this armor were actually good enough to turn the blades of most weapons that would be found at court, since heavy weapons would be banned for the safety of the king/prince/duke/whatever. It is best against slashing attacks, tolerable against piercing, and near useless against bludgeoning. In earlier versions of the game there were options for handling these seperately, but the unified system simplifies this into one AC. Ring mail existed. There are too many sources that show/describe rings sewn onto a leather backing. It was worn enough by those in moderately high station to have descriptions of it recorded for posterity. Studded leather. This can be thought of as in many ways similar to brigandine, but made for and by the comoners. The best description of ways it would have come about follows: Take a local blacksmith. Under feudal law, when the army marches, the local lord takes a peasant levy from whatever is nearby. The blacksmith is one of these. There are three major groups of weapons that armies typically field in peasant levies. Bow, of various types, pokey-thing-on-a-stick (spear, pike, etc.), and sword. Hiding behind a shield is the best way to stop arrows, so anyone with shields or the ability to make them will use them. Spears are similarly degraded in usefullness against shields, leaving the sword. Most peasant swords are simple brute hackers. Anything that turns/deflects the sword, even momentarily, will substantially increase survival, since there is no modern medicing and any deep wound stands a good chance of infection and death. The blacksmith is likely to take his forge apron (leather, not boiled) and using rivets and scrap metal plates, reinforce it. These plates will not be wonderful, but will likely turn a few blows. The survivors, will then go back home and take the metal off the leather (metal is valuable). Thus, we will have few surviving examples of this slight improvement on peasant armor. Mongols. The silk undershirt is actually part of the armor. Silk is difficult to penetrate with piercing weapons, and a loose silk undershirt tends to not have holes poked in it from evil arrows. The arrow still puts a hole in the person, so it is not armor in the classic d&d sense, but when the arrow is removed, the shirt comes out from the wound, having prevented the germs from the arrow tip from contacting the wounded flesh, substantially increasing the likelyhood that the person will avoid death by disease. Lastly for Mongols, one while the above links are fairly good, it seems to gloss over the one substantial victory gained by the europeans in that war. As I remember it, a polish noble succeeded in routing the northern prong of the three army attack by secretly crossing a river at night, waiting till the mongols were crossing to attack the city on the far side, and then slamming into the rear of the split army, breaking it. The mongols, then retreated and moved south to rejoin the other columns and gain fresh troops. The general intended to come back to finish the fight, but the khan's death messed that up. Finally, It depends almost entirely on which era of western knight vs. samurai you would fight in. Early samurai would have the advantage over early knights because most of the early armor had obvious joints protected by thinner chain. The bows and naginata could more than make up for the katana. Even with the katana/wakizashi pair, the samurai could use the katana to deflect a couple blows while sliding the shorter blade into the gaps. At the end of the knightly era, Maximilian plate would win, hands down, almost every time. The training was similar, but the western armor was so vastly superior that it rendered a non-gunpowder contest between these highly trained warriors nearly mood. After a few blows, even avoiding the shield, the katana would break on the armor. I went to London and Edinburgh to view some of the armor collections a while back, and there are simply no major weaknesses that the fighting styles of the east were trained to exploit. Maximilian plate was reportedly used as a model for early spacesuits because the joints are so well fitted that there are no holes large enough for a pin. Further, the armor itself is corrugated in many places. If corregation can make box cardboard that strong from a few layers of heavy paper, think what it can do with steel. Finally, the bow by that point, would not have played a significant factor in the battle as oriental bows typically lacked the power to penetrate the later plate armors, being primarily designed either for long range fighting (the foot bows) with high arcs, or lighter bows for use from horseback. Maximelian plate was designed to withstand a heavy crossbow at close range. Some historical accounts suggest that armorers shot there own finished products, and sold it with the dent in it, to prove that the armor really could deflect a quarrel. On another note, the shield is the most under-rated piece of armor in d20. As an SCA fighter myself, I would say that I stop better than 3/4 of all incoming blows with the shield. The armor underneath, is actually the minor additional protection, not the way it currently is. A good, medium sized slashing weapon is extremely difficult to dodge without a shield.
TMPikachu 09-08-04, 06:31 PM	I still have a quesion about how mobile plate armor is. I imagine you would not be able to move fast (hence the speed reduction) as you cannot move as fast, that would reduce ability to doge (lowish dex cap) what is the range of motion with plate? the enclosed helmet would also impair sight and hearing, which has to count for something in combat. *On shields, if D&D were ever revised... body armor should be damage reduction dexterity bonus+Shields should=AC.
Simetrical 09-08-04, 08:05 PM	The range of motion with plate typically wouldn't be quite as good as without, but that probably wouldn't impair your combat ability in the slightest. When it came to running, swinging a sword, whatever, plate armor would allow you to make all the requisite movements easily. Impaired sight generally wouldn't have been a great hindrance. In a typical battle, as long as your side's ranks remain mostly intact, any enemy who gets behind you will probably be completely surrounded, and you can probably rely on your comrades to cut him down (and they'd be able to see him just fine, since he'd be in front of them). In something more like one-on-one combat, you're going to be a bit more vulnerable if you somehow lose sight of your opponent, but that probably won't happen too much. Overall, the increase in protection from having a full visor far outweighed the possibility of being attacked from behind.
Tony Vargas 09-08-04, 08:40 PM	On another note, the shield is the most under-rated piece of armor in d20. As an SCA fighter myself, I would say that I stop better than 3/4 of all incoming blows with the shield. The armor underneath, is actually the minor additional protection, not the way it currently is. A good, medium sized slashing weapon is extremely difficult to dodge without a shield. Yeah, that's something I can't see why 3E didn't address. RPGs started getting shields right as early as RuneQuest (the game designer either in the SCA, or at least consulted with SCA fighters - it's been too long for me to remember what I heard, exactly). D&D still stubbornly marginalizes it, though, for no reason I can see...
TMPikachu 09-08-04, 09:56 PM	They'd have to balance one handed weapons + shields vs two handed weapons. Then there's some who fight with just a single one handed weapon. Making shields that much stronger would bring the need of making two handed weapons that much stronger. What would that do to single handers or dual wielders then? Hmmm, didn't know you could run in plate mail. Is there any website or books where I can confirm this stuff?
Thorak 09-09-04, 09:17 AM	Hmmm, didn't know you could run in plate mail. Is there any website or books where I can confirm this stuff? Who needs a book? Modern army gear weighs about the same as or more than a suit of plate. And the bulk of that is in an unbalancing pack on your back, not strapped to each part of your body evenly. And I can assure you, army recruits are forced to run long distances with that gear on. Combat-ready knights would be in just as, if not better shape than modern army recruits, since they'd been training their whole life. Sure, you couldn't run as far or, probably, as fast as you could without it, but that hardly means it's impossible to run at all.
Silverglass 09-09-04, 09:33 AM	will Hivers hives! How did those old knights get their legs around Clydesdales. They draft horses! literally! Please quit getting your information from anime, cartoons, junk ficition, classic fiction and do some research. Next thing you know people live in thatch roof homes with canopy beds because it rain cats and dogs. You should try getting your information from accurate sources. A common breed used as the basis for the European warhorse was the Percheron, these horses averaged around 15 to 17 hands (against a modern clydesdales 17 minimum). So a knights destrier was certainly very large and strong and at 16 hands would have been 5ft 4inches at the shoulder. And this was at a time when the populace was in general shorter than today. There mounts were certainly approaching the height of modern draft horses, but the body was somewhat less massive as the destrier was designed for greater speed. On the subject of studded leather I think that "improved leather" did exist. There are many references to people adding metal, horn, bone or other materials to the outside of their leather armour in an attempt to make it more resistant to blows. These armours fall between leather and the other higher AC armours so I think that D&D's Studded Leather is a badly categorised catch-all for the various types of leather+extra plates types of armour that did exist.
Cardinal Teplin 09-09-04, 10:08 AM	Splint mail was at least partly an attempt to model the armour used by fantasy bad guys in the 1970s. You know, the armour that consists of decorated metal that twists its way around the wearer in an open lattice work that looks really good while offering about as much actual protection as a wet towel? The type used by evil enchantresses, bad guys with pointy beards, muscular evil-doers who wear huge cloaks and not much clothing, and pretty much anyone to whom showing off an over-developed torso is more important than personal protection. I'm not saying it was sucessful, but there is no reason why the AD&D armour system should only model historically accurate and useful armour when there is so much in the way of useless but impressive stuff to be clad in. As an evil overlord, you may well be much more concerned with looking distinctive and cool in order to impress your Hoards of Doom and keep them in line, then you would do about a few lousey points of AC. Keeping moving all day maltreating underlings and hatching evil schemes is far more important than fighting - after all, the only way you'd get into a fight is if someone were to heroically sneak or battle their way through your Hoards of Doom, infiltrate your Lair of Evil , and engage you in single combat. And that's not likely to happen, now is it?
psionichamster 09-09-04, 11:49 AM	Finally, the bow by that point, would not have played a significant factor in the battle as oriental bows typically lacked the power to penetrate the later plate armors, being primarily designed either for long range fighting (the foot bows) with high arcs, or lighter bows for use from horseback. Maximelian plate was designed to withstand a heavy crossbow at close range. Some historical accounts suggest that armorers shot there own finished products, and sold it with the dent in it, to prove that the armor really could deflect a quarrel. i would like to see this...any chance of a link or something...it would be awesome to show to my players when they ding off their little lt. xbows and expect them to whizz right through people... on the other hand...when you fight a guy in metal armor on a horse, and you have a daikyu, what would you do? my first reaction would be to shoot him. in the face if possible. when that didn't work, and according to you, it wouldn't, i'd shoot his horse. now hes on foot, carrying 70 lbs or so of metal and a sword/shield whatever else he has on his person. and im on my horse still, with more arrows, a polearm or spear, and my swords. why go to the effort of killing this man when you can simply ride around him and let nature take its course...how long can he fight and sweat in that iron shell before falling from heat exhaustion or simple overheating his body? half a day, at the most, i'd say...less time in a really hot environ...more if hes got water or trained to walk in his armor but thats just me, and i fight dirty... on that note, is there any kind of armor that would stand up to a moderate speed vehicle impact? like a light truck or car, ie,2000 lbs, moving less than 30 mph...could it be done, has it been, etc.? the hamster ps. oh yeah DnD does NOT account for the shielding properties of the shield, or of parrying weapons like the Main Gauche, Sai, Jitten, or other implements designed to NOT allow the other guy's pointy things to touch your soft fleshy bits... h
Bartleby_GoC 09-09-04, 12:30 PM	A few thoughts... So it seems to be agreed that the term "Studded Leather" is a poor choice. Most of us accept that a stud is a bit of metal that pierces leather or cloth. Poking holes in your armor does seem counterproductive. However, the idea that attaching bits to the outside of leathher was a cheap and easy way to improve defense for lower class warriors. My suggestion is that "Studded Leather" actually means "Reinforced Leather" much like "Barbarian" means "Berserker". Metal would commonly be used for areinforcing material, but wood and bone could also be used. Common sense would seem to imply that it would be easier to break off bone and wood reinforcement that metal, but maybe it's like scraping scales off a fish. Material doesn't matter, wear will make the things fall off. Thus, the stats listed under studded leather could be used for armor worn by druids. It would also require Craft (leatherworking) to keep this kind of armor in working shape. Shields Someone meniotned that shield would offer a deflection bonus. In GURPS, they offer increased PD, but no DR. Just as you suggested. Personally, I think large and tower shields should also offer bonuses for avoiding breath and ranged weapons if the wielder huddles down (turtles) behind them. I may be suffering from a hollywood misconception, but wasn't most damage suffered in plate armor more due to dented plates than actual penetration? Ie, that warhammer hit caved in the chestplate, which roke ribs and contricted the lungs. It had to be a damn good bow/crossbow shot or a war pick to actually pierce plate. If true, plate might make the wearer immune to injury poisons except on a critical hit. WOnderful discussions so far. :) Bartleby
Silverglass 09-09-04, 12:50 PM	<snip> on that note, is there any kind of armor that would stand up to a moderate speed vehicle impact? like a light truck or car, ie,2000 lbs, moving less than 30 mph...could it be done, has it been, etc.? the hamster Certainly. Late medieval full plate or early renaissance shot-proof plate would certainly stand up to the impact with little or no damage. Unfortunately the person wearing it would still be injured due to the impact damage. This is how non piercing weapons worked against plate armours. They didn't damage the armour that much but the transmitted shock hurt the person inside. As to an armour that could protect the person inside from such an impact I'd guess that the very deep hard diving suits might provide decent protection if worn with a lot of padding. They are tough and very very heavy so will absorb impact well. But I'm not sure if a person could function in them out of the water as the magnesium JIM suit developed in the 70's weighed over a thousand pounds out of the water (but could operate at over a 1000 feet under the surface). Apparently the new Hardsuit 2000 has been tank tested as possibly functional at over 5000ft.
Bartleby_GoC 09-09-04, 01:23 PM	ps. oh yeah DnD does NOT account for the shielding properties of the shield, or of parrying weapons like the Main Gauche, Sai, Jitten, or other implements designed to NOT allow the other guy's pointy things to touch your soft fleshy bits... I absolutly LOVE the highly tecnical descriptions... :rofl: Bartleby
TMPikachu 09-09-04, 02:49 PM	Who needs a book? Modern army gear weighs about the same as or more than a suit of plate. And the bulk of that is in an unbalancing pack on your back, not strapped to each part of your body evenly. And I can assure you, army recruits are forced to run long distances with that gear on. Combat-ready knights would be in just as, if not better shape than modern army recruits, since they'd been training their whole life. Sure, you couldn't run as far or, probably, as fast as you could without it, but that hardly means it's impossible to run at all. they're still wearing metal shoes and encased in unbending metal (with joints, of course). I'm sure someone on this forum's done that thing where you make armor and fight other people. Creative Anachorism or something like that. I'd like to hear you testify!
Tony Vargas 09-09-04, 03:34 PM	They'd have to balance one handed weapons + shields vs two handed weapons. I wish they /would/ balance the two. Currenty, W&S blows compared to THF, and both TWF and THF can usurp the shield bonus of W&S via an Animated Shield or feats. Then there's some who fight with just a single one handed weapon. Yeah, that's a stylistic choice that really hoses you in 3E. In 2E they had a one-handed-weapon style that gave you an AC bonus. You might do something like that, anyway (whether you change shields or not).
Thorak 09-09-04, 04:42 PM	they're still wearing metal shoes and encased in unbending metal (with joints, of course). I'm sure someone on this forum's done that thing where you make armor and fight other people. Creative Anachorism or something like that. I'd like to hear you testify! The unbending metal generally covers the bits that are unbending because of bones. There's plenty of joints in the metal where the bones have joints, allowing almost complete mobility. And as for any practical use, I'd suggest ignoring anyone who paid less than a couple thousand for his armour. And preferably less than five thousand, but I make deferences to people who might have relatives of friends in the modern blacksmithing industry. Because any less than that, and you're buying a generic suit that's been made for an average person, not a custom-fitted suit. Imagine renting a tuxedo right off the rack, without getting it fitted, and how comfortable it would be. Same for a generic suit of armour, which is what most of the CA type guys wear.
danielinthewolvesden 09-09-04, 05:38 PM	Hmmm, didn't know you could run in plate mail. Is there any website or books where I can confirm this stuff? Well, sure, yes, they could run. I have seen SCA knights run in full plate. Now, let me make another thing perfectly clear- compared to someone wearing only shorts, running shoes and a t-shirt; hell yes, the guy in full plate is going to be slower. The reduction in speed for medium & hv to 20' from 30' and then a reduction to only 3X move for a "run" in heavy is about right. I could consider only a 5' reduction. But on that- full flapping robes aren't the best running outfit, either! :D Oh, and one thing- if they do wear metal scale- and they try to run or even trot- the noise is LOUD! wolfhawk & I have both fought in SCA armour. I admit my fighting days are over, and I only wore chainmail. But I am still a Marshal, and I know plenty of Knights and Armour Laurels. We know what we're talking about here. In order for full plate to be as good as we are talking about- it also must be custom made, note. That's very important. Oh, on shields- I agree with wolfhawk . I'd add a feat which would add +2 to your AC when using a shield (not a buckler)- Fighter level 4, say. "Shield Specialization". It has been shown both in SCA and with the Zulus- "sword & board" is the best fighting style by a small bit. Two-weapon style doesn't occur much until armour is mostly gone- it's a fencing style. A few SCA fighters do use it, however. Two-handed would have those Power Attack benefits- it's deadly, but it's dangerous to give up that shield.
wolfhawk 09-10-04, 02:11 AM	Well, sure, yes, they could run. I have seen SCA knights run in full plate. Now, let me make another thing perfectly clear- compared to someone wearing only shorts, running shoes and a t-shirt; hell yes, the guy in full plate is going to be slower. The reduction in speed for medium & hv to 20' from 30' and then a reduction to only 3X move for a "run" in heavy is about right. I could consider only a 5' reduction. But on that- full flapping robes aren't the best running outfit, either! :D Oh, and one thing- if they do wear metal scale- and they try to run or even trot- the noise is LOUD! wolfhawk & I have both fought in SCA armour. I admit my fighting days are over, and I only wore chainmail. But I am still a Marshal, and I know plenty of Knights and Armour Laurels. We know what we're talking about here. Running in armor is very doable, but very exhausting. My suit was breast and backplate, helm and chain everywhere else. My best guess would be to have the foolish mortal attempting this start making Con/Fortitude checks every round beginning the second round. I would say start at DC 0 and add the absolute value of the armor check penalty +1 per round. Thus, someone in Leather will go up to DC 10 in 10 rounds, while the poor tank in half plate hits DC 40 in only 5 rounds. As for a web-site request, I vaguely remember a television special about jousting, were a pair of British military types were trained briefly in armor and lance before fighting in a mock tourney. They both had to run and to a couple simple tumbling rolls. Unfortunately I can't remember the program's name... In order for full plate to be as good as we are talking about- it also must be custom made, note. That's very important. Oh, on shields- I agree with wolfhawk . I'd add a feat which would add +2 to your AC when using a shield (not a buckler)- Fighter level 4, say. "Shield Specialization". It has been shown both in SCA and with the Zulus- "sword & board" is the best fighting style by a small bit. Two-weapon style doesn't occur much until armour is mostly gone- it's a fencing style. A few SCA fighters do use it, however. Two-handed would have those Power Attack benefits- it's deadly, but it's dangerous to give up that shield. The best way we always fought for any mass combat was with a weapon & shield up front, and the polearm in the back. There are some good non-official feats to simulate rank fighting and its advantages. Of these, the simplest just remove the cover penalty that the first rank would give the second rank. To go much beyond that would really get into the realm of unit tactics, which is something of a different question. The reality is that if shields didn't give such an enormous advantage, the overwhelming majority of empires with large infantry formations wouldn't have used them (I am trying and failing to come up with a counter example before gunpowder & the Mongol horse archers. I like the feat idea. Maybe even extend it with another feat at fighter 10 or 12 that gives another +2. You should try getting your information from accurate sources. ... There mounts were certainly approaching the height of modern draft horses, but the body was somewhat less massive as the destrier was designed for greater speed. Hate to burst your bubble here, but the US Govt. kept a breeding stock of Heavy Cavalry horses till the 1980's. They are direct descendants of the classic destrier and were NOT bread for speed. The courser and charger were breed for speed (in different ways from each other). The primary requirement for the heavy cavalry's destrier was to overbear the lesser horses. If you watch alot of polo matches you will see the typical charger/courser behavior where one horse uses its shoulder to push against another horse that is moving in essentially the same direction. If you can find some footage were something Clydesdalish meets something Percheronish, you will notice a very different behavior. The massive Clydesdale pushes chest first at the smaller horse and usually knocks it over. This makes it fairly likely that the smaller horse will get seriously trampled, and is one reason the most massive breeds are not used in polo. Teams of polo ponies are very expensive and very few people could affort to replace horses regularly from being trampled. The best description I can think of is the difference between a runningback and a linebacker. One needs to go fast and deflect threats, the other is massive and slams into threats chest first.
wolfhawk 09-10-04, 02:27 AM	i would like to see this...any chance of a link or something...it would be awesome to show to my players when they ding off their little lt. xbows and expect them to whizz right through people... on the other hand...when you fight a guy in metal armor on a horse, and you have a daikyu, what would you do? my first reaction would be to shoot him. in the face if possible. when that didn't work, and according to you, it wouldn't, i'd shoot his horse. Again, in a 1 on 1 fight, with the barding that was commin, your better have an awful lot of arrows. See above description of the destrier. While humans can't move much in quilted armor that is thich enough to be effective, an inch and a half of quilting on destrier's back & sides doesn't impede it much. And if you annoy the knight for too long, he might pull out the crossbow. There's a reason many models have a stirrup. While these are the lighter crossbows, and there are a real pain to load from horseback, it can be done, and they will breach the wooden armors from the time. why go to the effort of killing this man when you can simply ride around him and let nature take its course...how long can he fight and sweat in that iron shell before falling from heat exhaustion or simple overheating his body? half a day, at the most, i'd say...less time in a really hot environ...more if hes got water or trained to walk in his armor The best gladiatorial contests from Roman days centered around this very idea. Can the lightly armed & armored person stay away from the tank with heavy weapons long enough to wear the tank out, and then close in for the kill? but thats just me, and i fight dirty... on that note, is there any kind of armor that would stand up to a moderate speed vehicle impact? like a light truck or car, ie,2000 lbs, moving less than 30 mph...could it be done, has it been, etc.? If you mean modern, check out some of the bear suits. One of them has been tested by the inventor wearing the armor when hit by a truck doing 30ish. He walked away essentially unhurt. As for older armors, I would say the best bet would be someone with high ranks in tumble and quilted armor. Then you could treat it as sort of a horizontal fall. I wouldn't recommend trying it. One of my college buddies went over a car without a helmet or pads while bicycling. The car and bike were messed up badly, but he tumbled and walked away with elbow & knee scrapes and several bad bruises.
Asta Kask 09-10-04, 02:46 AM	I remember the ancient Sumerians used some kind of leather cloak covered with bronze disks. Wouldn't this be studded leather?
Silverglass 09-10-04, 07:21 AM	Hate to burst your bubble here, but the US Govt. kept a breeding stock of Heavy Cavalry horses till the 1980's. They are direct descendants of the classic destrier and were NOT bread for speed. I did not say that they were bred for speed. I said that they were bred for "greater speed" than the modern clydesdale or shire i.e. that strength and speed were consideratons, whereas for a draft horse strength is the primary consideration. The modern draft horses are larger and heavier than their destrier ancestors, every breed society acknowledges this. The change started when the armoured knight disappeared and the breeds started being used mainly as draft horses so even the horses that the US army had (probably descended from the Spanish-Normans, a breed that came from a mix of percheron and andalusian thath was imported into the US around 1840) would have been the result of over a century of transition from destrier to working horse). The Percherons were the result of breeding very large Flemish stock with arabians left behind by the Moors, why would they breed a smaller faster horse with a very large and strong one, to combine strength and speed together. The direct descendants of the destrier have been bred for slightly different characteristics over the past centuries so the breeds have changed somewhat. I stand by my view that the Knights Destrier would have been bred for greater speed than a modern draft horse, and it was somewhat smaller than the modern version for most breeds. This does not mean that they could match the speed of an arabian or other light cavalry horses just that they were faster than the modern draft horse.
Thorak 09-10-04, 10:43 AM	Hate to burst your bubble here, but the US Govt. kept a breeding stock of Heavy Cavalry horses till the 1980's. They are direct descendants of the classic destrier and were NOT bread for speed. The courser and charger were breed for speed (in different ways from each other). The primary requirement for the heavy cavalry's destrier was to overbear the lesser horses. If you watch alot of polo matches you will see the typical charger/courser behavior where one horse uses its shoulder to push against another horse that is moving in essentially the same direction. If you can find some footage were something Clydesdalish meets something Percheronish, you will notice a very different behavior. The massive Clydesdale pushes chest first at the smaller horse and usually knocks it over. This makes it fairly likely that the smaller horse will get seriously trampled, and is one reason the most massive breeds are not used in polo. Teams of polo ponies are very expensive and very few people could affort to replace horses regularly from being trampled. Unfortunately, despite your claims about the U.S. Government having pure-bred destriers, you're wrong. First, because the pure destrier was lost as a breed sometime in the late 1500's, well before colonization even began in what would become the U.S., second because the people who did engage in colonizing what became the united states were in large part poor, or religious refugees. Not the kinds of people likely to have been secretly pure-breeding destriers. Now, the U.S. Government may have had horses they called destriers. But they were likely clydesdales and other draft horses they had trained to be warhorses, rather than pure-bred destriers. Since the draft horses are the direct descendents of the destriers as well, this would make the U.S. "destriers" direct descendents of the original breed, even though certain characteristics had undoubtedly changed. They may have been very similar to the medieval destrier, but not exactly. And no closer, in the end, than any other draft horse is at heart.
losu 09-10-04, 11:09 AM	hehe have any of you guys watched the movie, THE MESSENGER! it had lot of heavy armor and the fighting were real like :D
danielinthewolvesden 09-10-04, 06:12 PM	Running in armor is very doable, but very exhausting. My suit was breast and backplate, helm and chain everywhere else. My best guess would be to have the foolish mortal attempting this start making Con/Fortitude checks every round beginning the second round. Yes, running is exhausting in heavy armour, but a round is only 6 seconds. Let's make that "every minute after the first minute".
TMPikachu 09-10-04, 08:02 PM	Yes, running is exhausting in heavy armour, but a round is only 6 seconds. Let's make that "every minute after the first minute". heh, you'd think smashing orcs with a hammer or blocking blows from an ogre would be more tiring... The general D&D fatigue rule works
simen_88 09-10-04, 08:13 PM	Hey, I just got an idea. A studded warhorse. Basically, it's a warhorse with lots and lots of piercings. Would it even be remotely possible?
wolfhawk 09-10-04, 10:17 PM	I did not say that they were bred for speed. I said that they were bred for "greater speed" than the modern clydesdale or shire i.e. that strength and speed were consideratons, whereas for a draft horse strength is the primary consideration. The modern draft horses are larger and heavier than their destrier ancestors, every breed society acknowledges this. My mistake. I sometimes read quickly and failed to register the word greater. I agree that destrier's would have "greater speed" than a draft horse. They would have had less speed than something like the courser and charger that I mentioned. Unfortunately, despite your claims about the U.S. Government having pure-bred destriers, you're wrong. First, because the pure destrier was lost as a breed sometime in the late 1500's, well before colonization even began in what would become the U.S., second because the people who did engage in colonizing what became the united states were in large part poor, or religious refugees. Not the kinds of people likely to have been secretly pure-breeding destriers. Your seem to have made the same mistake I just acknowledged with respect to Silverglass, above. I did not claim that the U.S. govt has pure-bred destriers. I claimed they had heavy warhorses, that were descended from destriers. A labradoodle is descended from the french war-dog known as the poodle (not to be confused with its close relative the miniature or toy poodle). I don't claim that a labradoodle is even a war dog. As for the first colonies being mostly poor. Here are a couple of links to help you see your misconceptions. //www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va03.htm The third charter of Virginia, 1611: mentions horses and mares. If they have enough horses that they have to make note of them in their charter, they have horses. The first trip to Plymouth colony on the Mayflower was notable for that fact that they didn't have horses. //www.apva.org/history/list.html Ocupations of the first three trips bringing people to Jamestown. Note the large numbers listed as "Gentlemen". These were men of wealth and lesser nobility who could afford the passage. Most of them didn't survive because surviving in the new world meant -gasp- working. Second or third sons of nobility in europe often went adventuring, and these would have been exactly the sort of people likely to have destriers. After all, destriers were expensive to maintain, but no longer usefull, so the primogeniture system insured that these would have been dumped on the younger children. Personally I doubt any of these survived much longer than the gentlemen who would have brought them here, at least in Jamestown, since starving people will eat whatever they can and there was a lot of starving in Jamestown. Any horses that didn't die would likely have been used as draft horses regardless of original stock. The misconception that the first colonists were poor is unfortunately as prevalant as it is inaccurate. Now, the U.S. Government may have had horses they called destriers. But they were likely clydesdales and other draft horses they had trained to be warhorses, rather than pure-bred destriers. Since the draft horses are the direct descendents of the destriers as well, this would make the U.S. "destriers" direct descendents of the original breed, even though certain characteristics had undoubtedly changed. They may have been very similar to the medieval destrier, but not exactly. And no closer, in the end, than any other draft horse is at heart. Lastly, my guess is that these were probably a cross between the original stock (which was itself a cross between destriers and draft horses) and some type of charger. They had to be strong enough to move around cannon, but swift enough for a rider to outrun most chasing enemies. The only reasonably sure way to tell would be a DNA sequence, and I don't know of any good sources of Destrier DNA. The best hope might be a surviving horsehair implement in a european museum of arms and armor, but I have never seen one.
wolfhawk 09-10-04, 10:33 PM	Yes, running is exhausting in heavy armour, but a round is only 6 seconds. Let's make that "every minute after the first minute". Me, I would keep it at six seconds. Full out running in armor, seemed as exhausting to me as a sprint. A very anerobic sprint. I was usually panting and gasping for breath and couldn't continue before the first minute was up. This means that everyone should pass the first check (DC0), but things go downhill from there. The hustle is a good pace that shouldn't give anyone a heart attack. heh, you'd think smashing orcs with a hammer or blocking blows from an ogre would be more tiring... I thought that until I tried it. It turns out our ancestors were cleverer than we thought. The armor is designed not to get in the way of fighting, first and foremost, to the point were I found it almost relaxing to trade full strenght blows with polearms and such. I can't comment on an actual ogre, since the heaviest blows I ever took were from a large human with a polarm. With a bit of training, you settle into a rhythm that doesn't use much energy.
Bartleby_GoC 09-13-04, 01:58 PM	Hey, I just got an idea. A studded warhorse. Basically, it's a warhorse with lots and lots of piercings. Would it even be remotely possible? Yeah! Dye it's skin black and stitch it with orcish banner symbols too. Use different piercings and you could have a spiked hvy warhorse, though it's still in debate whether or not the US calvalry would use one. ;) Just kidding, I like the discussion so far. Bartleby
Thorak 09-13-04, 02:14 PM	Noted, Wolfhawk. I took "They are direct descendants of the classic destrier ... " to mean that you thought they were a pure direct descendant, since that's often how 'direct descendant' is used. I acknowledge I may have been over-hasty making that assumption though. As for the early colonists; I never said there weren't men of wealth who ventured over. I said the bulk of them were poor, or religious refugees. The 'or' being important, because plenty of wealthy Protestants came over to escape persecution. And, IIRC, Jamestown is hardly typical of most colonial towns, in that it had a disproportionately wealthy population. But I may be mismembering.